PETER MATHEW Vs. BETTY JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure C order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate III, Thrissur in Cri. M.P. No. 2146/2001 in C.C. No. 770/99.

(2.) The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 770/99 on the file of the J.F.C.M. III, Thrissur. The case arose on a complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioner alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Police has also registered crime No. 144/99 of the Peechi police station against the petitioner on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the I.P.C. The petitioner preferred a petition before the lower Court under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. for staying the proceedings in C.C. 770/1999. The lower Court dismissed the petition by a common order in Cri.M.C. No. 2148/2001 in C.C. 686/99 and Cri. M.P. No. 2146/2001 in C.C. No. 770/99. Aggrieved by the order in Cri.M.P. No. 2146/2001 the petitioner has come up with this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the finding of the Court below that Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. is not attracted in this case is clearly unsustainable. Relying on the decision of this Court reported in Joseph v. Joseph, 1981 Ker LT 902 : (1982 Cri LJ 595), the learned counsel contended that in construing Section 210(1) the word 'offence' cannot be given the restricted meaning. According to him, the subject matter of the enquiry in both the cases is the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent suppoted the order and urged that there is no ground for interference. He placed much reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, AIR 1989 SC 1 : (1989 Cri LJ 1005).