High Court Kerala High Court

Ambookan Jose Vakkachan vs Em Rajeev on 18 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Ambookan Jose Vakkachan vs Em Rajeev on 18 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4426 of 2008()



1. AMBOOKAN JOSE VAKKACHAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. EM RAJEEV
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :18/11/2008

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Crl.M.C.No. 4426 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008

                               O R D E R

In this Crl.M.C. the petitioner prays that the extra ordinary

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked

to quash a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act pending

before the learned Magistrate.

2. Cognizance was taken in that case as early as in 2003 as

is indicated by the number assigned to the case i.e. C.C. 542 of

2003. In reply to a specific query by this Court, the counsel for

the petitioner concedes that the trial in the prosecution under

Section 138 of the Act has already commenced.

3. I am, in these circumstances, not at all persuaded that

the plea of limitation, which the petitioner appears to have raised

in defence, can or need be considered at this stage by this Court

in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the

prosecution initiated against the petitioner. He has no

explanation as to why he has waited till now – after the

Crl.M.C.No. 4426 of 2008
2

commencement of the trial – to come before this Court with this

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the

dismissal of this petition shall not fetter the rights of the petitioner to

raise the plea of limitation in the trial, which has already commenced.

I choose to take the view only that the powers under section 482

Cr.P.C. need not be invoked to consider that plea.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm