Allowed

Bhavani v. C.Santhamma

Kerala HC4 Oct 2019Crl.MC/8742/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash proceedings in a cheque bounce case. The court held that the second accused wife was not implicated as she neither issued nor signed the cheque, and no case was made out against her.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner/second accused in C.C.1543/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Neyyattinkara, are quashed.

Bhavani Vs C.Santhamma — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 12TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.8742 OF 2018(C)

¶6

CC 1543/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

¶7

-I,NEYYATINKARA

¶8

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED

¶9

BHAVANI

¶10

W/O.M.G.S.MITHRAN, RESIDING AT KISH KINDA, R.C.STREET, NEYYATTINKARA P.O.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶13

1 C.SANTHAMMA KARUMACODEVILA, NORTH STREET, MARTHANDOM P.O., KANAYAKUMARI, TAMIL NADU, PIN- 629 165.

¶14

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

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.M.C.8742/18

ORDER

The prayer in the Crl.M.C is to quash the proceedings in C.C.1543/2013 on the file of the judicial magistrate-I, first class, Neyyattinkara as against the petitioner. After admitting the Crl.M.C, notice was issued to the first respondent who is the complainant in C.C.1543/2013. Service on her was declared complete. She did not appear.

¶20

Heard Sri.M.R.Sasith, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

C.C.1543/2013 is a complaint case in which the allegation is commission of an offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There are two accused in the said case who are husband and wife. The wife who is the second accused is the petitioner herein. There is no case for the complainant in the complaint or in the notice which preceded the complaint that the petitioner issued any cheque. Nor is a case put forward

¶22

CRL.M.C.8742/18

¶23

¶24

that the petitioner signed any cheque. The complaint does not contain any allegation against the petitioner to attract any offence. She was not issued any notice under Sec.138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint does not contain any material to prosecute the petitioner. It seems that she has been implicated only because she is the wife of the first accused who allegedly issued the cheque. The Crl.M.C is only to be allowed.

¶25

The Crl.M.C is allowed. All proceedings against the petitioner/second accused in C.C.1543/2013 on the file of the judicial magistrate-I, first class, Neyyattinkara are quashed. The complaint can be prosecuted against the first accused only.

A.M.BABU Judge

Mrcs/10.10

CRL.M.C.8742/18

APPENDIX

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.1543/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.1, NEYYATTINKARA. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO MR.M.G.S.MITHRAN, WHO IS THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET IN ANNEXURE-I COMPLAINT.

Bhavani v. C.Santhamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavani v. C.Santhamma

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

State Bank of Travancore, Vs T.K.Hamsa Haji

M.I.Abdul Basheer Vs Sasidharan

Vilasini Amma, Vs Nagaputhran

Bhavani Vs N. Stella Bai

Jayaraj Vs Sudheer

T.S.Swaminathan Vs State of Kerala