The High Court allowed the petition for quashing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed against two accused persons.
Annexure-A1 complaint and further proceedings in C.C. No.3952 of 2017 against the petitioners in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were quashed.
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
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 27TH MAGHA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 533 of 2018
CC 3952/2017 of JMFC(SPL. COURT) FOR TRIAL OF SEC.138, NI ACT CASES , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED
BY ADV.SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/1ST ACCUSED:
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 533 of 2018 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO. 3952 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT CASES) ERNAKULAM DATED 03.10.2017.
ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.06.2017. ANNEXURE A3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONERS TO ANNEXURE A3 NOTICE DATED 16.08.2017. ANNEXURE A4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS TO ANNEXURE A3 NOTICE DATED 22.08.2017.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
// True copy //
PA to Judge
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.M.C No.533 of 2018
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.
No.3952 of 2017 on the files of the court below.
against the petitioners and the 2nd respondent before the court below alleging offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
quashing Annexure-A1 complaint and further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.3952 of 2017.
appearance for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Crl.M.C.533/18 -: 2 :-
the learned Public Prosecutor.
was issued by the 2nd respondent and not by the petitioners. The allegation is that the 2nd respondent purchased the articles for the petitioners from the first respondent and towards the discharge of the said liability, the 2nd respondent issued the cheque in question for and on behalf of the petitioners. The first petitioner is the firm and the second petitioner is the proprietor of the said firm. The
Crl.M.C.533/18 -: 3 :-
petitioners did not issue any cheque. They also did not sign the cheque. The cheque in question was also not drawn from the account maintained by the petitioners. Annexure-A2 would also show that the cheque in question was issued by the 2nd respondent. In view of the above reasons, no purpose will be served even if the prosecution against the petitioners is permitted to be continued. For the said reason, I am inclined to quash Annexure-A1 complaint and further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.3952 of 2017 on the files of the court below, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed .
sd B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/16.2.18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal complaint filed against petitioners alleging cheque dishonour can be quashed when the cheque was not issued or signed by the petitioners.
Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against non-signatories to the cheque.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Top Constructions & K. Bharathan Alias Bharathan Kondath
M/s. Trident Corporation
Srinesh.K.V
State of Kerala
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
