Dismissed

Haseeb Haneef v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Sept 2014Crl.MC/4152/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition under s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by an accused to quash a complaint under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judge held that the complaint clearly disclosed all necessary ingredients for prosecution, including cheque issuance, dishonour, and notice, thus disclosing a cause of action.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed as meritless. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not quashed.

Haseeb Haneef Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/27TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4152 of 2014 ()

¶6

CC 2829/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - VII

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

HASEEB HANEEF, AGED 40 YEARS S/O HANEEF, SHIHAB MANZIL, LAJNATH WARD ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.BIJILY JOSEPH SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

2. SADHIQUE ALI S/O M.P.M.MEERAN, RESIDING AT KATTIKATTU HOUSE C/O NIXON, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682 020.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-09-2014, ALONG WITH CRMC. 4153/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 4152 of 2014 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 3.8.2006 IN C.C.NO.2829 OF 2010 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURTVII, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

sab

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J.

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

¶25

Crl. M.C No. 4152 of 2014

¶26

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

¶27

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2014.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C No. 2829 of 2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – VII, Ernakulam. He has been facing prosecution on the allegation that a cheque issued by him in favour of the complainant (second respondent herein) happened to be bounced due to insufficiency of funds, and in spite of statutory notice he did not make payment of the cheque amount. Now he has brought this petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the very complaint itself on the ground that the complaint filed by the complainant does not disclose any cause of action.

¶30

I perused the complaint filed by the second respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner herein. In the said complaint, the second respondent has stated all the necessary things for a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged that the petitioner herein had issued a cheque for a certain amount, that the cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds, that statutory notice was caused by the complainant within time, and that the

¶31

Crl. M.C No. 4152 of 2014 2

¶32

petitioner herein failed to make payment on demand made by statutory notice. I fail to understand what more is required to reveal a cause of action for a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that this petition is a mischievous one, brought as an experimental proceeding when the court below issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. I find that this petition is liable to be dismissed as merit less.

¶33

In the result this Crl.M.C is dismissed as merit less.

¶34

P.UBAID, JUDGE

¶35

sab

¶36

/TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE

Haseeb Haneef v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haseeb Haneef v. State of Kerala

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

Yohannan Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Iqbal Vs M.M.Hamza

Vijayan Varrier Vs Radhakrishnan

Haseeb Haneef Vs the State of Kerala

Anish Vs State of Kerala

Binu @ Kannan Vs State of Kerala