IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3311 of 2007()
1. SHEELA ANTONY, AGED 44,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.T.MATHEW, S/O.THOMAS, KATHRIKADAVU
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :01/12/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.Nos.3311,3312 & 676 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of December 2007
O R D E R
These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed by the second
accused in C.C.Nos.146/02, 568/02 and 569/02 all pending
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam.
All these are prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and they have all been initiated by the same
complainant, that is the respondent herein.
2. Altogether there are two accused persons in these
three prosecutions. The first accused in all the three cases is the
husband of the common petitioner herein. The petitioner is the
first accused.
3. The short contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in all these three cases is that though she is the
wife of the first accused, she is not the account holder nor is she
a signatory to the cheques concerned. The learned counsel for
the petitioner contends that under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the liability is only on the drawer of the cheque
and the holder of the account in which the cheque is issued.
Crl.M.C.Nos.3311,3312 and 676/07 2
Inasmuch as the petitioner is neither the account holder nor a
signatory to the cheque, the petitioner is not liable to face these
prosecutions. The mere fact that the petitioner may also be
liable to discharge the original liability, will not in any way make
her answerable to a charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent,
Sri.P.K.Mohammed fairly concedes that it is true that the
petitioner herein, the second accused in all the three cases is
neither the account holder nor the drawer of the cheques
concerned. In these circumstances, the learned counsel fairly
concedes that these prosecutions in so far as they relate to the
petitioner/second accused, can be quashed invoking the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. The request of the petitioner in these petitions is
hence accepted. C.C.Nos. 146/02, 568/02 and 569/02 all
pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Ernakulam, in so far as they relate to the petitioner/second
accused, are hereby quashed.
Crl.M.C.Nos.3311,3312 and 676/07 3
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant
submits that some errors have been committed in the production
of the documents in these cases. There is an error in producing
the documents. He prays that the respondent may be permitted
to make appropriate applications to take back the cheque in one
case and produce them in the other.
7. Appropriate application can be made before the
learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate must consider such
application and pass appropriate orders.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.Nos.3311,3312 and 676/07 4
Crl.M.C.Nos.3311,3312 and 676/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007