Dismissed

K.Sreedharan v. Vasanthakumari

Kerala HC18 Jun 2009Crl.MC/2528/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recognised criminal magistrate dismissed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC to quash proceedings for cheque dishonour. The court held that subsequent evidence undermining the complaint's validity or jurisdictional allegations does not warrant quashing; such issues must be raised before the lower court.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the criminal proceedings was dismissed.

K.Sreedharan Vs Vasanthakumari — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 2528 of 2008() ------------------------CC.20/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KALPETTA. ....................

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

---------------

¶7

K.SREEDHARAN, (61 YEARS), S/O.RAMAN, KURUPPANTHODIYIL, POST, KOLAMB, VAIDYAR MOOLA, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

---------------

¶11

1. VASANTHA KUMARI, CHELATH VEETTIL, KANIAMPATTA POST, VYTHIRI TALUK.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

dkr

¶16

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶17

=================== Crl.M.C. No. 2528 of 2008-A

¶18

===================

¶19

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2009.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.20/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta, taken cognizance by the Magistrate on the complaint filed by first respondent for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings initiated under Annexure B complaint contending that it is an abuse of process of court and the dishonoured cheque in C.C.No.20/2008 was not issued by the petitioner to first respondent towards discharge of any debt and instead it was given from the Police Station at the instigation of Sub Inspector and therefore the case is to be quashed. It is also contended that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalpetta and therefore the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.2528/2008-A

¶23

-2-

¶24

Though notice was issued to first respondent, she did not appear.

¶25

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was

¶26

heard.

¶27

Learned Counsel submitted that at the defence evidence stage in C.C.No.20/2008 petitioner examined the Sub Inspector, Changaramkulam Police Station as DW1 and as seen from Annexure J his deposition, he admitted the case of the petitioner that the cheque was given from the Police Station and if that be so it is clear that the complaint is an abuse of process of court and it is to be quashed. Learned Counsel also submitted that it is clear that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta.

¶28

The complaint, which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate, cannot be quashed exercising the extraordinary powers of this court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, based on the subsequent evidence

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.2528/2008-A

¶30

-3-

¶31

adduced in that case. If what is seen from Annexure J deposition and as canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the cheque could not have been issued to first respondent as alleged in the complaint. I that case the accused cannot be convicted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. But it is not a reason to quash the complaint under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, based on this allegation, the complaint cannot be quashed holding that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction. Petitioner is entitled to raise all these contentions before the Magistrate. Petition is dismissed.

¶32

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶33

dkr

K.Sreedharan v. Vasanthakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sreedharan v. Vasanthakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vs State of Kerala

Sasikumar Vs Director General of Police

Jaseela Vs Muneer & Others

Geo Paul Vs State of Kerala

G.Gigi Vs State of Kerala

N.Ramankutty Nair Vs E.S.I. Corporation