IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 304 of 2006(C)
1. A.C.CHUMMAR, AKKARA HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALWAYE REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANU
For Respondent :SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :15/01/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.304 of 2006
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138
of the N.I Act. The respondent/complainant had filed a private
complaint and cognizance was taken on such complaint. The
petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that proceedings
against the petitioner may be quashed invoking the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. What is the reason ? The short contention raised by the
petitioner is that the complainant is not the payee or the holder in due
course. In these circumstances, the prosecution initiated at the
instance of the respondent/complainant is not justified and deserves
to be quashed. This in short is the plea.
3. The copy of the cheque in question has been produced
before the court. It shows that the payee is the Federal Bank. But the
amount is directed to be received in the temporary over draft account
of M/s.Akkara Car Company. The name of the Federal Bank, the
complainant appears as the payee though there is a direction that the
amount is to be granted to the temporary over draft account of
M/s.Akkara Car Company. The relevant direction in the cheque is to
pay the amount to “TOD A/c Akkara Car Company Federal Bank”.
Crl.M.C.No.304 of 2006 2
3. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion or
expression of opinion on the disputed questions of fact. Suffice it to
say that at the moment and with the available inputs, I find absolutely
no merit or substance in the contention that the prosecution has been
launched by a person who is neither the payee nor the holder in due
course.
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may
hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way
fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and
necessary contentions before the learned Magistrate. I have only
taken the view that proceedings do not deserve to be prematurely
terminated by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C.No.304 of 2006 3