Dismissed

Babu Jayaraj v. C.Babu

Kerala HC20 Oct 2009Crl.MC/2779/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The Court held that the Complainant specifically stated that partial payment was made, justifying the lower amount demanded in the notice.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Application to quash the complaint was dismissed. The complainant's case stands considered as the amount demanded was justified by the payment made.

Babu Jayaraj Vs C.Babu — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2779 of 2009

¶6

--------------------------------------CC.1328/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM ....................

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

BABU JAYARAJ, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.BASKARAN NAIR, PRASANTH VILLA, CANTONMENT NORTH WARD/NAGAR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

C.BABU, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.MAINADS, P.B.NO.627, NO.19/1966-B4 1ST FLOOR, WAHU SHOPPING COMPLEX, P.V.SWAMY CROSS ROAD, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT-02.

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR FOR R2

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.2779 of 2009

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Petitioner is the accused and first respondent,

¶19

the complainant in C.C.No.1328/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kollam, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint contending that ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is not made out.

¶20

Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque is Rs.26,000/-, but as per the

¶21

notice sent under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, only Rs.21,000/- was demanded as is clear from Annexure-A1 complaint and therefore, the complaint is to be quashed.

¶22

CRMC 2779/09 2

¶23

On hearing the learned counsel, I do not

¶24

find any ground to quash the complaint exercising the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Though the dishonoured cheque is for Rs.26,000/-, it is the specific case of the first respondent in the complaint itself that out of the said Rs.26,000/-, Rs.5,000/- was paid by the petitioner and therefore, only Rs.21,000/- was due and demanding that amount, notice was sent. In such circumstances, I find no reason to quash the

¶25

complaint. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate.

¶26

Petition is dismissed.

¶27

20^th October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)

¶28

tkv

Babu Jayaraj v. C.Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Jayaraj v. C.Babu

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

Georgekutty Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

V.C.Muhammed Ali Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalma

Jeemon & Others Vs State of Kerala & Others

Ussain Vs State of Kerala and Another

Anzar Vs State of Kerala

Salin C.Narayanan and Others Vs State of Kerala