Dismissed

Gopakumar v. Mathew John

Kerala HC17 Oct 2022Crl.MC/532/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash a Section 138 N.I. Act complaint. The Court held that the grounds raised were insufficient to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and the complaint disclosed prima facie ingredients of the offence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case maintaining the petition to quash the complaint was dismissed.

Gopakumar Vs Mathew John — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 25TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 532 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT ST 573/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, DEVIKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

GOPAKUMAR

¶9

AGED 52 YEARS

¶10

S/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AMBURAN BUILDING,
MANORAMA JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT AND RESIDING AT GAYATHRIMADOM HOUSE,
POOPPARA KARA , POOPPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA
TALUK, SANTHANPARA P.S, POOPPARA P.O, IDUKKI
DISTRICT PIN 685 619

¶11

BY ADV GOPAKUMAR(Party-In-Person)

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶13

1MATHEW JOHN,
S/O. JOHN, MALEKUNNEL HOUSE, ADVOCATE DEVIKULAM,
DEVIKULAM P.O, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT MALEKUNNEL HOUSE,
POTTANKADU P.O, BISONVALLY VILLAGE, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN 685 565

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682 031

¶15

R1 BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
R2 BY SRI.DENNIS DEVASSY, GOVT. PLEADER

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

Crl.M.C. No.532 of 2020

¶19

MARY JOSEPH, J.

¶20

- - - - Crl.M.C. No. 532 of 2020

¶21

- - - - Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This is a petition filed by the accused in a prosecution under

¶24

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’) seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) to quash it. The copy of the complaint filed under Section 142 N.I. Act to launch the prosecution is produced alongwith the petition on hand as Annexure A1.

¶25

Shri. Joseph George, the Learned Counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions to justify his claim to quash Annexure A1 complaint.

¶26

Annexure A1 does not disclose an offence under

¶27

Section 138 N.I Act.

¶28

Six cheques were issued by the petitioner herein to the receiver appointed by the Munnar Special

¶29

Crl.M.C. No.532 of 2020

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

Tribunal as security to safeguard the claim if any

¶32

made by the receiver and those are therefore, not supported by a valid consideration or are issued to discharge any legally enforceable debt.

¶33

Annexure A1 complaint is filed in a personal capacity and not in the official capacity as a receiver.

¶34

Annexure A1 is hit by Section 219 of Cr.P.C.

¶35

Annexure A1 is silent regarding the date on which the intimation regarding lawyer notice was given to the accused.

¶36

There was only a single notice demanding the amount due under different cheques.

¶37

Cause of action is not shown in Annexure A1.

¶38

Though arguments are elaborated on the above counts,

¶39

those, in the view of this Court will not empower this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash Annexure A1. It is pertinent to note on a reading of Annexure A1 that ingredients to attract the offences prima facie, are

¶40

Crl.M.C. No.532 of 2020

¶41

-:4:-

¶42

incorporated. Rest of the allegations can only be decided during the trial proposed to be held on the basis of Annexure A1.

¶43

The grounds elaborated being insufficient for invocation of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to grant the relief sought, Crl.M.C is dismissed.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE.

ttb

Crl.M.C. No.532 of 2020

¶48

-:5:-

¶49

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 532/2020

¶50

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES :

¶51

ANNEXURE A-1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST
573/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
DEVIKULAM
ANNEXURE A-2THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23-03-2017 IN
OP(C) NO. 817/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE A-3TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-04-
2017 IN MTOP 8/2017 OF THE COURT OF
MUNNAR SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
ANNEXURE A-4TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 24-04-2018
IN MTOP 8/2017 OF THE COURT OF MUNNAR
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
ANNEXURE A-5TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03-
07-2019 IN MFA (MT) OP 70/2018 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A-6THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-
09-2019 IN OS 36/2017 OF THE HON'BLE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM.

¶52

Crl.M.C. No.532 of 2020

¶53

-:6:-

Gopakumar v. Mathew John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopakumar v. Mathew John

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

Salim K.M., Vs the State of Kerala

Sunil v G Vs v a Mohanan

Andikkat Shihabudheen @ Shihab Vs Binu T.V.

Poornachandran Vs State of Kerala

Jareesha Latheef Vs Muhammad Jalaludheen

K.P.Vinod Vs K.J.Antony