IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 944 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.864/2007 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: A3 -------------- ANOOJA M.G., AGED 25, D/O. R.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, ANUSH, KELESWARAM, KALLIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-42. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. SABIMA K., KAMAL NAGAR, HOUSE NO.14 A, KAMALESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008 ALONG WITH CRMC.NOS.950, 955, 969 AND 609 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C Nos.944, 950, 955, 969 and 609 of 2008 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 ORDER The common petitioner in these cases, a woman, faces indictment in 5 different prosecutions, all initiated by different complainants. The prosecutions are under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner, it is averred, is a partner of a partnership firm. She has allegedly signed the cheques in question. Complaints have been filed. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioner has not so far entered appearance before the courts concerned. At this stage the petitioner has come to this Court with a contention that the prosecutions against the petitioner are liable to be quashed for the reason that the petitioner cannot be made liable with the aid of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner, it has not been averred in the complaints, is in charge of and responsible to the partnership firm for the conduct of its affairs, it is urged. Consequently it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to premature termination all these prosecutions against her. Crl.M.C Nos.944, 950, 955, 969 and 609 of 2008 of 2008 2 2. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a signatory to the cheques in question, which are dishonoured. That she is a partner of the firm is also not disputed. At any rate, these aspects are not disputed at this stage before me. 3. I am of opinion that the question is squarely covered by the decision of the 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S.M.S Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla [2005(4) KLT 209 (SC)]. The reference by a 2 Judge Bench was answered and in para.10 as the third proposition in clause © the following dictum appears: “c) ............................................................................ ............... So far as signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under sub-s. (2) of S.141.” 4. In the light of that clear statement and in the light of facts which are not disputed at this stage, I am satisfied, that the petitioner is not entitled to the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C Nos.944, 950, 955, 969 and 609 of 2008 of 2008 3 5. These Crl.M.Cs are, in these circumstances, dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that coercive processes have been issued against the petitioner, a woman. She is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. She apprehends that her application for regular may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 7. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which she could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339]. Crl.M.C Nos.944, 950, 955, 969 and 609 of 2008 of 2008 4 8. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-