High Court Kerala High Court

P. Prema Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
P. Prema Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2888 of 2005()


1. P. PREMA KUMAR, THOTTUMKARA MADAM
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. MR. HARIDAS, THUNDIL VEEDU,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :11/12/2008

 O R D E R
                       M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
          -----------------------------------------------------
                 CRL.M.C.No.2888 OF 2005
       -----------------------------------------------------
           DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008

                             O R D E R

The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.72/04 before

the Court of J.F.C.M., Ambalappuzha. The petitioner is

challenging the validity of Annexure C order dated 30.7.2005 in

C.M.P.No.2047/05 passed by the J.F.C.M., Ambalappuzha. The

prayer in this petition is to quash Annexure C order and the

application for amendment Annexure B by exercising the

extraordinary power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and the 2nd respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor

also.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner that Annexure A complaint was filed originally by

the second respondent herein under Section 420 of Indian Penal

Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case as

C.C.No.72/2004. Annexure A complaint was filed on 23.9.2003.

CRL.M.C.NO.2888/05 2

Subsequently, the second respondent filed Annexure B petition

before the concerned court for incorporating Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act also, by filing a petition on 2.7.2005

along with an affidavit. In pursuance of that petition, Annexure C

order has been passed by the learned Magistrate, which is

without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed. Therefore, that order

is liable to be quashed, it is submitted.

4. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted

that sufficient ingredients are there in the original complaint to

attract the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and for

incorporating that Section also along with the impugned

complaint, Annexure B petition was filed and there is no illegality

in Annexure C order.

5. I have perused the records and also the allegations in

this petition. The prayer made by the second respondent in

Annexure B petition is to amend the original complaint filed on

23.9.2003 for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code

and to include Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The order of the learned Magistrate, Annexure C reads as follows:

CRL.M.C.NO.2888/05 3

“This is a petition filed by the complainant to

amend the complaint by incorporating Section 138 of

N.I.Act.

The complaint is filed u/s.420 IPC. On going

through the complaint, it can be seen that the

ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

appear to have attracted. No prejudice will be caused to

the accused by incorporating S.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. Hence petition is allowed.”

Thus, it is evident from the impugned order that the learned

Magistrate has allowed the petition for amendment and Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was incorporated for the

reason that sufficient ingredients are there to attract Section 138

of N.I.Act and no prejudice will be caused to the accused. There

is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to allow an

amendment of the original complaint thereby incorporating

Section 138 of N.I.Act also in a complaint originally filed under

Section 420 of IPC only. If sufficient ingredients are there, the

Magistrate can frame charge under Section 138 of N.I.Act also.

The proceedings in this case has not reached that stage. Before

CRL.M.C.NO.2888/05 4

reaching that stage, the petitioner herein has approached the

trial court to invoke the provision of law to amend the complaint

which is not there in the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the procedure

adopted by the learned Magistrate is not correct and the same

was passed inadvertently. Therefore, I find that this is a fit case

where Annexure C order is liable to be quashed by invoking the

inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Therefore, the prayer in this petition to quash Annexure C order

passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ambalappuzha, is allowed.

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed.

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

dsn