(1.) The first respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner as S.T. 1489/99 before the Judl. 1st Class Magistrate's Court - II, Perinthalmanna alleging the commission of offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner accepted the summons and entered appearance through counsel and filed an application for adjournment on 26.2.2000. The above application was allowed and the case was adjourned to 12.4.2000. On that day also the petitioner applied and the application was allowed and the case was adjourned to 24.5.2000 as the last chance. On 24.5.2000 also the accused applied, and the application was rejected and non bailable warrants was issued against the petitioner and the case posted to 30.6.2000. On that day the accused was absent and there was no application, but the complainant filed Annexure 2 petition under S.257 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the complaint. Without passing an order on the above petition, it was posted for hearing to 7.7.2000 and non bailable warrant was repeated against the petitioner. Thereafter the case stood posted on 14.7.2000, 30.7.2000, 19.8.2000, 30.12.2000 and on 1.1.2001. On all those occasions, the complainant was absent but non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. On 30.7.2000 the non bailable warrant was issued against the accused through the Circle Inspector of Police, Pandikkad. On 30.12.2000, the Court below ordered issue of the non bailable warrant against the accused and steps under S.82 and 83 Cr.P.C. through SP, Malappuram and case was posted to 1.1.2001. At this stage, the petitioner (accused in the case) had come up before this Court invoking S.482 Cr.P.C. for an order directing the court below to drop the proceedings against him or to dismiss the case by accepting Annexure A2 withdrawal petition or to dismiss the complaint due to the persistent absence of the complainant and also to quash the coercive steps initiated against him.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below should have granted permission to withdraw the complaint on the petition under S.257 filed by the complainant and acquitted the accused. It was further submitted that in the absence of the complainant, the court below ought not have proceeded with the case any further and should have acquitted the accused under S.256(1) Cr.P.C., but instead of adopting such a course, the Court below had proceeded with the case for procuring the presence of the accused only for the purpose of seeing him in the dock and to remand him to the jail. It was further submitted that once the complainant had sought permission to withdraw the case making an averment in the petition that the matter had been settled between the parties and he was not interested in prosecuting the case, the court below should have granted permission as sufficient cause had been shown by the complainant seeking permission to withdraw his case. Even if such permission was not granted, in the absence of the complainant, the case could not be proceeded as the case was numbered and tried as S.T. (summary trial) and the accused should have been acquitted under S.256(1) Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the entire proceedings taken by the court below was an abuse of the process of the court and as such the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Mathew v. State of Kerala ( 1986 KLT 128 ). That was a case where the police filed a charge sheet against the accused alleging the commission of an offence under S.420 IPC, as the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured. The accused in the above case was abroad and the case was registered in the Long Pending Register. When coercive steps had been initiated, the matter had been settled between the parties and the accused filed petitions for exemption from the personal appearance for permission to appear through the Pleader, for advancing the posting of the case, for recalling the arrest warrant, for permission to compound the offence and also a joint petition along with the defacto complainant compounding the offence. The Trial Court rejected all the above petitions and aggrieved by the above orders, the accused had come up before this Court. There it was held: