T.Sudha vs State Of Kerala on 5 May, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1474 of 2009()


1. T.SUDHA, W/O.LEKSHMANAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. K.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :05/05/2009

 O R D E R
                         V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                    Crl.M.C. No. 1474 of 2009
                * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                  Dated: 5th day of May, 2009

                              ORDER

In this Crl.M.C. filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the 2nd accused

in C.C. 1144 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M. , Chavakkad for

prosecuting the revision petitioner and her husband for offences

punishable under Sections 420 and 468 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C.,

seeks to quash the above proceedings.

2. The case of the 2nd respondent/complainant is as

follows:-

On 12-7-1998, Lakshmanan (A1), the husband of the

revision petitioner (Sudha – A2) borrowed from the complainant

a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for certain family needs and gave a post-

dated cheque bearing the date 25-7-1998 drawn on the

Cantonment Branch of Canara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram .

Consequent on the dishonour of the said cheque for want of

funds the complainant prosecuted the said Lakshmanan for an

offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act, 1881. In that

prosecution the said Lakshmanan took up the contention that

he was not the holder of the account pertaining to the cheque in

Crl.M.C. 1474 of 2009 -:2:-

question. When the Manager of the drawee bank was examined

it was revealed that the account holder of the cheque was Sudha

the wife of Lakshmanan. The case, therefore, ended in acquittal

of Lakshmanan. Hence, the present private complaint.

3. It is too early to accept the contentions of the revision

petitioner. I am not dealing with those contentions lest the

revision petitioner would stand foreclosed from raising those

contentions during the trial of the case. This Crl.M.C. is

accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the

revision petitioner to raise all defences available to her during

trial.

Dated this the 5th day of May 2009.

Sd/- V. RAMKUMAR,
(JUDGE)

ani.

/true copy/