Allowed

K.L.Joseph v. Mini Shaju

Kerala HC15 Feb 2018Crl.MC/953/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam bench quashed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The court held that since the company issuing the cheque was not named as an accused, the prosecution against the director was unsustainable per Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. invoked Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Complaint Annexure A1 and further proceedings against the petitioner in ST.No.947/2010 quashed.

K.L.Joseph Vs Mini Shaju — 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

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 26TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 953 of 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 947/2010 of J.M.F.C.-III,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)

¶8

K.L.JOSEPH, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KSHEMANIDHI KURIES & LONAS (P) LTD, VIMALA BUILDINGS, RICE BAZAR, THRISSUR 1, S/O.LONAPPAN, KOLAZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NELLIKKUNNU DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY KUM.T.S.SAUMYA SMT.N.M.SHEENA DAS SMT.DRISYA SURENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

MINI SHAJU, W/O.SHAJU, VANCHIPURAKKAL HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA P.O, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031.

¶13

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.DINNY THOMAS

¶14

SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR SRI.ALBERT V.JOHN SMT.M.SRUTHY SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM R2 BY SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 953 of 2014 ()

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

ANNEXURE A1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED IN ST 947/10 JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 111, THRISSUR.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL

¶21

True copy

¶22

P.A to Judge

¶23

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.953 of 2014

¶25

Dated this the 15^st day of February, 2018

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.947/2010 on the files of the court below.

¶28

The 1^st respondent herein filed Annexure A1

¶29

complaint before the court below against the petitioner herein alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶30

The petitioner filed this Crl.M.C praying for quashing Annexure A1 complaint and further proceedings against the petitioner in the above said case.

¶31

Heard.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though there are specific averments to

¶33

the effect that the cheque was issued by the company, the company was not made as an accused and in the said circumstances, the complaint is not maintainable.

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.953/2014

¶35

¶36

It is clear from Annexure A1 complaint that the cheque was issued by the company with the signature of the present accused, who was the Executive Director of the company. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that when the offence is committed by the company, certain categories of persons as well as the company are deemed to have committed the offence. Therefore, in order to have a successful prosecution against the director of the company, the company must be made as an accused. Since the company was not made as an accused in Annexure A1 complaint, Annexure A1 complaint cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. [(2012) 5 SCC 661]. Therefore, no purpose will be served even if the prosecution against the petitioner is permitted to be continued.

¶37

In the result, this Crl.M.C stands allowed, quashing Annexure A1 complaint and further proceedings against the petitioner in S.T.No.947/2010 on the files of the court below

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.953/2014

¶39

¶40

in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC

¶41

to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly.

¶42

In the result, this Crl.M.C stands allowed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶45

\True Copy\

¶46

PA to Judge

¶47

K.L.Joseph v. Mini Shaju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.L.Joseph v. Mini Shaju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Payyadakkath Vs State of Kerala

Siddhique Vs Sreekumar

Sindhu Thomas Vs State of Kerala

K.L.Joseph Vs Mini Shaju

Nazeer Hassan Vs State of Kerala