DHARMADAS AMBALATHINVILA VEEDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Going by the number assigned to the prosecution, it was filed as early as in 1997 (C.C.367 of 1997). The same has been transferred to the list of long pending cases and it bears the number L.P. 119 of 1999 now. The law appears to be closing in on the petitioner at last and that explains why the petitioner has rushed to this Court now. The petitioner prays that directions may be issued invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) What is the reason and what are the directions to be issued? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if two months time were granted, the amount due shall be paid. The dispute shall be settled and appropriate application for withdrawal or composition shall be filed. The matter may be directed to be kept in abeyance for two months, it is prayed.

(3.) I am not persuaded to agree that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. I can find no merit or grace in the prayer made by the petitioner, who has not appeared before the learned Magistrate from 1999 for the indulgence of further time of two months and to keep the proceedings in abeyance.