IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2699 of 2009()
1. V.SUDHARMA, W/O.RAJENDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREEKUMARI, D/O.BHASHKARI,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
For Respondent :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :24/09/2009
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2699 of 2009
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner is the wife of deceased Rajendran,
Secretary of Karichal Handloom Society Ltd.
No.3414. First respondent filed Annexure-A
complaint alleging that Karichal Handloom Society,
through the Secretary and President, for and on
behalf of the Society as well as in their
individual capacity, issued the dishonoured cheque
and failed to pay the same on demand in writing and
thereby committed the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Judicial First Class
Magistrate-VI, Neyyattinkara took cognizance of the
offence as C.C.No.1192/2007. Subsequently,
Rajendran, Secretary of the Society, shown as
representing the Society, the first accused, died.
First respondent filed a petition to implead his
widow as an additional accused. Learned Magistrate
issued summons to her. This petition is filed under
CRMC 2699/09 2
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by his
widow to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1192/2007
as against her.
2. Case of the petitioner is that as she is not
a signatory to the cheque, she cannot be impleaded
as an accused in the case especially when, no
notice was sent to her, as provided under Section
138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent submitted that summons was issued to the
petitioner in an application filed by the first
respondent for impleading, as she was subsequently
appointed the Secretary of the Society, on the
death of the original Secretary, her husband
Rajendran and Learned Magistrate issued summons to
the petitioner in that petition alone and not as an
accused.
4. If the Secretary, who was representing the
original accused, is no more, the successor
Secretary could, definitely, be impleaded in the
CRMC 2699/09 3
proceedings. But, if petitioner is to be impleaded
as the widow of Rajendran, in her individual
capacity, as rightly submitted by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, she cannot be
impleaded as an additional accused. As learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that petitioner is not so far impleaded,
petitioner is at liberty to raise all the
contentions before the learned Magistrate in the
application filed by the first respondent.
Petition is disposed. If petitioner has already
been impleaded, learned Magistrate has to consider
the question whether petitioner could be proceeded
in the proceedings, in her individual capacity.
24th September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv