IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 85 of 2008() ----------------------- CC.636/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED: --------------------------------- AJITHA PRADEEP, W/O. PRADEEP, NATIONAL BUNGLOW, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O.,CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------- 1. V.O. JOSEPH, VATHAPPALLIL, PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 85 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 636/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala, challenges Annexure-I complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein against the petitioner and her husband with regard to the dishonour of cheque for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs allegedly borrowed by the husband of the petitioner herein on 16.06.2004. 2. The 1st respondent had initially filed a complaint against the husband of the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said case was not prosecuted further on coming to know that the cheque was not issued in respect of an account maintained by the petitioner's husband, but issued from the account maintained by the petitioner. It is thereafter that the 2nd complaint, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-1, has been filed. 3. I do not make any observation on the merits of the case lest it might prejudice one party or the other except to say that CRL. M.C. NO. 85/2008 : 2 : no grounds have been made out to quash the complaint. This M.C. Is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all the defences available to her before the court below. The petitioner may invoke Section 317(3) Cr.P.C before the Magistrate for excusing her personal appearance before court prior to the commencement of the trial and if and when such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the Magistrate and appropriate order shall be passed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 85/2008 : 3 :