LATHEESH BABU P.T. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in Annexure-I complaint in S.T.C.No.56 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein. It is stated that the complainant (the 2nd respondent herein) had also filed Annexure-II complainant arraying the petitioner and the 3rd and 4th respondents as three accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and that the said Annexure-II complaint has now been numbered as C.C.No.1715 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery.

(2.) It is averred that originally Annexures-I and II complaints were filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kannur and later those two complaints transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery, on the ground that the 2nd respondent/complainant is an Advocate, who is practising at Kannur. It is also stated that besides Annexures-I and II, the 2nd respondent/complainant has also filed yet another complaint against the 3rd respondent herein as accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which has now been numbered as C.C.No.46 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III (Mobile Court), Kannur.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the allegations raised by the complainant in Annexures-I and II complaints as well as C.C.No.46/2015 have arisen from the very same financial transaction and that as per the case of the complainant, the entire transactions had originated during the month of August, 2009 and thereafter, on different occasions, the transactions had taken place between the parties concerned. It is contended that the offences alleged are similar in nature and allegedly committed within a span of 12 months and that the complainant has purposefully split up the financial transactions and converted the same into three different criminal cases, in order to harass and victimise the accused therein. Apart from these, the 2nd respondent has filed two more civil suits against the petitioner and the other respondents.