Petitioner, accused in cheque bounce case, sought quashing of complaint alleging non-maintenance of Section 141 requirements. Court allowed quashing of complaint and proceedings against petitioner as company was not named as accused.
Quashing of Annexure A1 complaint and further proceedings against the petitioner in S.T. No. 2542/2010.
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. 2866 of 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 2542/2001 of J.M.F.C.-III,THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)
K.L.JOSEPH,
S/O.LONAPPAN, KOLAZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NELLIKKUNNU DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.H.KIRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
SRI.ALBERT V.JOHN
SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM R2. BY SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DG
Crl.MC.No. 2866 of 2014 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED IN ST 2542/2010, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THRISSUR.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.M.C.No.2866 of 2014
Dated this the 15st day of February, 2018
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.2542/2010 on the files of the court below. The 1st respondent herein filed Annexure A1 complaint before the court below against the petitioner herein alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
submitted that even though there are specific averments in the complaint to the effect that the cheque was issued by the company, the company was not made as an accused and in the said circumstances, Annexure-A1 complaint is not maintainable.
Crl.M.C.No.2866/2014
2
Crl.M.C.No.2866/2014
3
against the petitioner in S.T.No.2542/2010 on the files of the court below in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, this Crl.M.C stands allowed.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.
True copy
P.A to Judge
DG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable when issued against a company director but the company itself is not made an accused.
Whether Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the company to be an accused for prosecution against a director.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd.Followed¶37
Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. [(2012) 5 SCC 661] · Who else cites this
Sheeja Mol v. State of Kerala and othersFollowed¶37
Sheeja Mol v. State of Kerala and others [2015 (5) KHC 548]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
K.L. Joseph
Mini Shaju
State of Kerala
KSHEMANIDHI KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
B.Sudheendra Kumar
Parties & counsel
