Privately filed criminal complaint alleging offences of speculation and forgery against husband and wife for forged cheques. Court quashed proceedings holding cognizance unsustainable as signatures were genuine and civil proceedings concluded.
Private complaint and cognizance taken thereof quashed. Crl.M.C. allowed accordingly.
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 P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943
Crl.MC.No.2907 OF 2017(C)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC * 164/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,ADIMALI
( AS PER ORDER DATED 08.06.2017 IN CRL.M.A. 6420 IN CRL.M.C 2907/2017, CC NO. OCCURRING IN CAUSE TITLE, SHORT CAUSE TITLES, IN THE PETITION AND THE PRAYER PORTION AS “CC.NO. 164/2016” IS CORRECTED AS “CC.NO.184/2016”.)*
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 G.S.GUNASEKHARAN NARAYANASWAMY NAIDI NAGAR, POOLANKINAR P.O,UDUMALPETTA TALUK,TAMIL NADU
2 JAYALAKSHMI
W/O. GUNASEKHARAN, NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU NAGAR, POOLANKINAR P.O, UDUMALPETTA TALUK,TAMIL NADU
BY ADVS. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR SHRI.S.PRASANTH SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI 31.
2 K SUNDARAJAN S/O. KRISHNASWAMY NAIDU, R. KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, POOLANKINAR P.O, PIN 642122, UDUMALPETTA TALUK, TAMIL NADU
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI SRI S GOPAKUMARAN NAIR-SR,SRI E C BINEESH -GP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.2907 OF 2017(C)
2
ORDER
The husband and wife, accused Nos.1 and 2,
came up against the private complainant alleging offence under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 474, 193 and 196 IPC over which cognizance was taken for the said offences after examining the
complainant.
proceedings initiated against the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act resulted in acquittal. Hence the complainant came up alleging the said offences. A cheque by
its nature a negotiable instrument, can be used in lieu of cash. Admittedly the cheques were issued by the complainant to the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the same contains his signature. If
that be so, it will carry the authority to fill
Crl.MC.No.2907 OF 2017(C)
up the cheques, when the liability under the cheques became due, for which no criminal liability for the said offences can be extended. Cognizance taken overlooking the settled principles, hence can not be sustained. If it is allowed to proceed further, it will not serve any purpose. The private complaint and the cognizance taken thereof is hereby quashed.
The Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
Crl.MC.No.2907 OF 2017(C)
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO. 164/2016 OF 2011
( AS PER ORDER DATED 08.06.2017 IN CRL.M.A. 6420 IN CRL.M.C 2907/2017, CC NO. OCCURRING IN CAUSE TITLE, SHORT CAUSE TITLES, IN THE PETITION AND THE PRAYER PORTION AS “CC.NO. 164/2016” IS CORRECTED AS “CC.NO.184/2016”.)*
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.T.NO.139/2008 DATED 04.03.2011 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.278/2008 DATED 23.05.2011 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST WARRANT AGAINST THE 1ST PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal prosecution under the Penal Code maintaining cognizance of alleged forgery when the underlying cheque transaction was settled in civil proceedings warrants quashing of the private com
3 provisions across 3 enactments
G.S.GUNASEKHARAN NARAYANASWAMY
JAYALAKSHMI
STATE OF KERALA
K SUNDARAJAN
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
