Dismissed

Sabu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Oct 2022Crl.MC/1209/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a cheque dishonour complaint. It observed that the defence regarding partial repayment requires evidentiary proof and cannot be decided without trial. The petition was dismissed with liberty to the accused. Exemption from personal presence was granted unless necessary.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed keeping liberty to the accused to raise defence of partial repayment; exemption from personal appearance granted.

Sabu Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 28TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1209 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 534/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SABU, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KAMBIYAKATH HOUSE, VETTAKKAL P.O., CHERTHALAM ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688529.

¶9

BY ADVS. BIJU VIGNESWAR B.PRAMOD

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.

¶12

2 K.K.JAYARAM, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, KOLLAT HOUSE, ARTHUNGAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688530.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.T.R.RENJITH, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.1209 of 2022

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated, this the 20^th October, 2022

¶19

This is a petition filed under Section 482

¶20

of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for

¶21

short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash Annexure-1 complaint

¶22

pending as S.T.No.534/2021 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

¶23

Cherthala. The petitioner is the accused in the above case. The original complainant is

¶24

the 2^nd respondent herein.

¶25

Heard both sides.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

canvassed Ground No.B in this petition to contend that Annexure-1 complaint alleging

¶28

commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act will not lie in the

¶29

case as could be seen from Annexures 3 and 4.

¶30

According to him, as per Annexure-3, almost 1/3^rd of the cheque amount (Rs.96,000/-) was repaid to the 2^nd respondent before the demand

¶31

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.1209 of 2022

¶33

notice, and Rs.46,000/- was repaid even before

¶34

the presentation of the cheque. So the 2^nd

¶35

respondent did not have the authority to

¶36

present the cheque for Rs.3,00,000/-, without disclosing this fact. However, the complainant demanded the entire amount covered by the cheque and initiated prosecution based on the dishonour of such a cheque. Therefore the complaint is liable to be quashed.

¶37

However, the learned counsel for the

¶38

2^nd respondent resisted this contention stating that the said allegations require

¶39

proof by adducing evidence and as such complaint cannot be quashed on the said

¶40

ground.

¶41

However during further hearing and on perusal of the complaint, it is noticed that

¶42

the above contentions require proof by

¶43

adducing evidence and, therefore, this complaint cannot be quashed, without trial.

¶44

Crl.M.C.No.1209 of 2022

¶45

¶46

This legal position was conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner also.

¶47

Therefore, keeping the liberty of the accused to raise the said contention and prove the same as per law, this petition is dismissed.

¶48

As requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, personal appearance of the accused can be dispensed with and the learned Magistrate is directed to insist presence of the accused only when his presence is absolutely necessary and in all other occasions, he shall be given exemption.

¶49

However, it is specifically ordered that the petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate Court as and when specifically directed, without fail.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.

¶52

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.1209 of 2022

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1209/2022

¶56

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶57

ANNEXURE1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PETITIONER A/C NO. 00000067228499480 OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHERTHALA BRANCH. ANNEXURE4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER'S SON SARATH BABU A/C NO. 37546104096 OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATTANAKKAD BRANCH.

Sabu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachu.M.John Vs Varghese George

Nishith P.M Vs 1. State of Kerala Rep. by the Public Prosecutor

Nishith P.M Vs State of Kerala Rep. by the Public Prosecutor

K.G. Sivadasan Nair Vs M/S. Ideal Publications Trust

Dinesh Kumar Vs Sajeevan

Saheer V.P. Vs Raihana K.