Allowed

Murali C.K. v. Mrs.Shylaja Babu

Kerala HC4 Sept 2018Crl.MC/4950/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed quashing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner, who was neither a signatory nor alleged to be responsible for the company's conduct, invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Complaint and further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 1527 of 2017 were quashed.

Murali C.K. Vs Mrs.Shylaja Babu — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 13TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4950 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1527/2017 of J.M.F.C.II,THRISSUR DATED 23-11-2017

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

MURALI C.K.

¶9

S/O KUMARAN, CHERAKULAM HOUSE, OPP.TO MCP CONVENTION CENTER, MAIN ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680121.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 MRS.SHYLAJA BABU AGED 57, W/O LATE. BABU, KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE,MAIN ROAD, KURIYACHIRA, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, TRISSUR DISTRICT-680006.

¶13

2 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.MENON

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

E C BINEESH - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the 4th accused in C.C. No. 1527 of

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 4950 of 2018

¶21

-2-

¶22

2017 on the files of the court below. The above case arose

¶23

out of a private complaint filed by the first respondent

¶24

herein before the court below against the petitioner and others alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the N.I.Act” for short).

¶25

The petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C. praying

¶26

for quashing Annexure-A complaint and further

¶27

proceedings against the petitioner in the above said case.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

It is not disputed that the petitioner did not sign

¶30

the cheque. As per the allegations in the complaint, the

¶31

cheques were issued by accused Nos. 2 and 3 for and on

¶32

Crl.MC.No. 4950 of 2018

¶33

-3-

¶34

behalf of the first accused Company. It is alleged that the petitioner was the agent of the Company who offered the cheques. There is no allegation that the petitioner was in-charge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company. There is also no allegation that the offence was committed by the Company with the consent or connivance or was attributable to any neglect on the part of the petitioner who was also a staff of the Company. In view of the above reasons, it has to be held that there is absolutely no allegation in the complaint to connect the petitioner invoking Section 141 of the N.I. Act. There is also no allegation that the petitioner is the Managing Director or the Joint Managing Director of the first accused Company. In view of the above reasons, particularly when the

¶35

Crl.MC.No. 4950 of 2018

¶36

petitioner was not a signatory to the cheques in question, no successful prosecution against the petitioner on the basis of the allegations in Annexure-A complaint can be maintained. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to quash Annexure-A complaint and further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 1527 of 2017 on the files of the court below in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly.

¶37

This Crl.M.C. stands disposed of as above.

¶38

Sd/-B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Crl.MC.No. 4950 of 2018

¶41

-5-

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT/PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NI ACT PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST MAGISTRATE COURT NO.II AT THRISSUR.

¶45

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUES FOR RUPEES 1,20,000 AND 14,696 DRAWN ON THE STATE BANK OF INDIA MALAD WEST BRANCH MUNBAI, PRODUCED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS COURT NO.II AT TRISSUR.

¶46

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶47

ANNEXURE D

¶48

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS NO.II AT TRISSUR.

¶49

/true copy/

¶50

P.S. to Judge

Murali C.K. v. Mrs.Shylaja Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murali C.K. v. Mrs.Shylaja 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

R.Radhakrishnan Vs Thomas a.

Iqbal Vs Shamsudheen M.K.

Davi v. Thattil Vs Johnson

Qualified Private Medical Practitioners Association (Qpmpa) Vs M/S Cochin Drug House

K.K. Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Saji.C Shekar Vs State of Kerala