IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2430 of 2010()
1. MRS.S.RENUKA, W/O.P.CHANDRAN, DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
2. MRS.N.V.AMMA, W/O.LATE M.S.P.NAIR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. TRIUNE FREIGHT PVT.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.SABU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2430 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are accused 3 and 4 in C.C.No.
215/2008 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate’s (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam,
taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act on Annexure-A1
complaint filed by the second respondent. This
petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings
contending that they have no connection with the
dishonoured cheque or the transaction and even as
per the complaint, the accused were only the
employees and they discontinued their service of
the company and petitioners have nothing to do with
issuance of the cheque and therefore, the case as
against the petitioners is to be quashed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners was heard. Though notice was served on
CRMC 2430/10 2
the second respondent, he did not appear or dispute
the case of the petitioners.
3. Annexure-A1 complaint, taken cognizance by
the learned Magistrate for the offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, shows
that the case of the second respondent in paragraph
2 of the complaint is that second accused, while
working as Managing Director of the first accused
company, obtained a loan of Rs.1,30,000/- for the
company and petitioners, namely, accused 3 and 4,
were the Directors of the company. In paragraph 3,
it is alleged that second accused, being the
Managing Director of the Company, issued the cheque
towards repayment of the amount and it was
dishonoured and later, on the representation of the
second accused that it will be honoured, the cheque
was again presented for encashment and it was
dishonoured once again and in spite of notice
demanding the amount, it was not paid. On a reading
of the complaint, it is clear that petitioners were
implicated only for the reason that they were the
CRMC 2430/10 3
Directors of the first accused company. Though, in
paragraph 7 of the complaint, it is stated that
accused 3 and 4 were the Directors and Managing
Director was in charge of the conduct of the
business of the first accused company at the time
when the cheque was issued, said allegations itself
show that second accused, who is the Managing
Director of the Company, was responsible for the
conduct of the business of the company. The cheque
was issued not by the petitioners, but by the
second accused. In such circumstances, continuation
of the proceedings as against the petitioners is
only an abuse of process of the court.
Petition is allowed. The cognizance taken for
the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act in C.C.No.215/2008 by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam against the
petitioners is quashed.
13th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv