PURUSHOTHAMAN KUTTIYIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is stated that the petitioner is now a permanent resident of Coimbatore, Tamilnadu State and that though he is a native of Kerala, he has been settled at Coimbatore along with his family for the last 20 years in connection with his business purposes. That the petitioner and his wife are directors of a company, which is having its registered office at Coimbatore. That recently the petitioner has obtained reliable information that a warrant of arrest is pending against him in connection with a complaint said to have been filed by the 2nd respondent herein for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as S.T.No.381/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pattambi, and that the said case has been included in as long pending case, as L.P.No.9/2007.

(2.) It is further stated that the petitioner has never had any business transaction or any other transaction whatsoever with the 2nd respondent and that the petitioner has not issued any cheque to him. That the petitioner has not received any statutory notice said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent with respect to the alleged dishonour of the cheque in question and that the petitioner has never been served with any notice or summons on the impugned Ext.P-4 complaint from the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pattambi, at any point of time. Now it is learnt that a lawyer has appeared purportedly on behalf of the petitioner by filing a memo of appearance in the above case. But that the petitioner has never entrusted any lawyer to conduct the above mentioned case as the petitioner was totally unaware about the pendency of such a case. It is urged that the entire transaction pursuant to Ext.P-4 compliant is nothing short of abuse of process of court and that the petitioner has reasons to suspect that some rivals of the petitioner have done a concerted unlawful act with malafide intention so as to falsely implicate the petitioner in the impugned Ext.P-4 complaint. It is also contended that the warrant pending against the petitioner in the above mentioned case is issued without the petitioner being properly served notice or summons and thus devoid of procedural adherence and is liable to be cancelled, etc. It is in the light of these aspects, that the petitioner has filed the instant Original Petition by taking recourse to the extraordinary powers conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following reliefs:

(3.) Heard Sri. K.R. Avinash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 State. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R-2 will stand dispensed with.