IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 4773 of 2003()
1. ALBIN S/O. YOHANNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PUSHPANGATHAN, AYYAPPA DADANAM,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :08/06/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.4773 OF 2003
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in a prosecution under
Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. His wife is the 1st
accused. The case of the complainant is that a cheque drawn
on a joint account of the petitioner and his wife which was
signed by them jointly was dishonoured by the bank. The
matter has reached the stage of trial. It is at the defence
stage. The petitioner at this stage has come to this Court with
a prayer that the complaint may be quashed invoking the
powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.
2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an account holder
or a joint account holder. He has been unnecessarily arrayed
as a party in the complaint. Except the assertions made,
there is nothing to substantiate the said contention.
CRL.M.C.NO.4773 OF 2003 -: 2 :-
Annexure-A2 produced shows that the 1st accused is the
Proprietrix. It does not show that it is not a joint account or
that both the accused have not signed the cheque.
3. In these circumstances, sufficient material to justify the
quashing of the proceedings is not made available to this Court
at all. This Crl.M.C. must, in these circumstances, meet its
inevitable fate – dismissal.
4. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to
express any opinion on merits about the acceptability of the
contention of the petitioner that he is not a joint account holder
or even an account holder. I only intend to hold that sufficient
materials are not made available before this Court to justify
resort to the jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. in favour
of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to raise all his
contentions, including that contention before the learned
Magistrate. I note that to consider the above innocuous
contention, the matter has been remaining on the file of this
Court from 2003. For various reasons this Court could not
dispose of the same earlier. I direct that the learned Magistrate
must now dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible – at
CRL.M.C.NO.4773 OF 2003 -: 3 :-
any rate, within a period of 45 days from the date on which a
copy of this order is placed before the learned Magistrate.
4. Issue a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the
respondent (complainant) for production before the learned
Magistrate.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge