Allowed

B.Sridhar v. Anil P.N.

Kerala HC8 Jul 2014Crl.MC/5218/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition to quash a Section 138 NI Act complaint against the accused, who was a former director of the company. The court held that since he resigned before the cheque issuance and notified the Registrar of Companies, he had no connection with the company, making the prosecution an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Complaint in S.T.No.4209 of 2008 is quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner; other interlocutory applications dismissed.

B.Sridhar Vs Anil P.N. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2014/17TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5218 of 2013 ()

¶6

ST 4209/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.5:

¶8

B.SRIDHAR

¶9

S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KOUDANYA HOUSE, POOTHOLE THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN

¶11

SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE (NOT A PARTY):

¶13

ANIL P.N.

¶14

S/O.P.R.NARAYANANEZHUTHACHAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE VELLATTANJUR VILLAGE AND PO, VIA VELUR

¶15

THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 003.

¶16

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

¶17

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 5218 of 2013 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE-A.CERTIFIED COPY OF ST NO.4209/2008 JFCMC-III, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE-B.TRUE COPY OF LAWYER'S NOTICE DATED 22/12/2007. ANNEXURE-C.TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DATED 14/1/2008. ANNEXURE-D.TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. ANNEXURE-E.TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28/6/2006 OF ROC TN. ANNEXURE-F.TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 7/8/2009 IN BATCH CRL.MCS.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶24

//TRUE COPY//

¶25

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶26

Crl.M.C. No.5218 of 2013

¶27

Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2014.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

5^th accused in S.T.No.4209 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur is the petitioner herein. He is seeking quashment of Annexure-A complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶30

Annexure-A complaint shows that the complainant is prosecuting a company and its directors for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though the 1^st respondent/complainant was served, there was no representation on his side.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a former Director of the 1^st accused company. But, he resigned from the company before issuance of the cheques as evidenced from AnnexureE. As required under the provisions of the Companies Act, a notice in Form

¶33

32 was given to the Registrar of Companies. Therefore, on the date of issuance of the cheques by the company, the petitioner had no connection with it. Considering the above fact, in a batch of similar petitions a learned

¶34

¶35

Crl.MC No.5218/2013

¶36

Single Judge of this Court as per Annexure-F order quashed similar complaints against the petitioner. Therefore, the facts and circumstances would indicate that the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is an abuse of the process of the court.

¶37

In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure-A complaint in S.T.No.4209 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed.

¶38

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶39

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶40

cks

B.Sridhar v. Anil P.N.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sridhar v. Anil P.N.

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

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

The Chief Editor, Malayala Manorama Vs State of Kerala

Muthoot Capital Services Ltd. Vs M/S.King Fisheries Ltd.

Aju Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez Mujeeb Rehman Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

M/S.Thirupathi Traders Vs S.Nazarudheen