High Court at Ernakulam disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act filed by the State of Kerala against the petitioner.
Compaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not quashed; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 26TH MAGHA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 1035 of 2018
ST 3385/2014 of J.M.F.C.,MATTANNUR
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER
SINDHU THOMAS W/O.SHIJU JOSEPH, POTTANIYIL HOUSE, KAYALAMPARA P O, CHEMPERI VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670632.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1035 of 2018 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN S.T.C NO.3385/2014 OF J.F.C.M COURT, MATTANNUR. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT IN S.T.C.NO.3385/2014 OF J.F.C.M COURT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINT IN S.T.C.NO.3385/2014 ON THE FILE OF J.F.C.M COURT, MATTANNUR. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.M.C. No.1035 of 2018
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.3385 of 2014
on the files of the court below.
respondent against the petitioner alleging offence under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
quashing Annxure-A1 complaint.
submitted that the cheque in question does not belong to
Crl.M.C.1035/18
-: 2 :-
the petitioner. Whether the cheque in question was drawn from the account of the petitioner or not is a matter for evidence. It is clearly stated in the complaint that towards the discharge of the liability in connection with chitty transaction, the petitioner issued the cheque in question and the petitioner assured the 2nd respondent/complainant that the cheque in question would be honoured on presentation. In view of the above said averments, it cannot be said at this stage that the cheque in question does not belong to the petitioner. The said aspect can be decided only during the course of trial. During the course of trial, if the court finds that there are materials to indicate primafacie that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 420 I.P.C., the petitioner can, no doubt, be proceeded against in accordance with law.
Crl.M.C.1035/18
-: 3 :-
Suffice it to say that having gone through Annexure-A1
complaint, I am satisfied that Annexure-A1 complaint primafacie discloses the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to quash Annexure A1
complaint, as sought for.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands dismissed.
SD
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/15.2.18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act discloses the ingredients of the offence prima facie.
Whether the criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing of the complaint is maintainable at this stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sindu Thomas
State of Kerala
M/S Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Company (Pvt) Ltd
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
