IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1780 of 2006 --------------------------- (ST.406/2006 JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TRIVANDRUM) .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ----------------------------- SMT.MARIAMMA JOSEPH, W/O.THAMBI KANNANTHANAM, 9-A, BLOOM NEST, VENGISWORAR NAGAR, 2-MAIN ROAD, VADAPALANI, CHENNAI-26. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.SAJ FLIGHT SERVICE PVT. LTD., AIR PORT ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR REJI.K.VARGHESE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R.1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.3515/2006 IN CRL.M.C.NO. 1780 OF 2006 ......... DISMISSED. 18/12/2009. SD/- A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1780 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009. ORDER Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.2 in a prosecution launched by respondent No.1 herein, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the above proceeding pending against him. 2. Ext.A1 complaint is seen to have been filed by respondent No.2 alleging that the two accused therein had issued two cheques for Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.14 lakhs respectively in discharge of a debt. But when the cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account. Though statutory notice was issued, the debt was not discharged. It was in the above circumstances that the complaint was filed. 3. As mentioned earlier, petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.2 in Annexure A1 complaint. Admittedly petitioner is the wife of accused No.1. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has implicated the petitioner only with a view to harass her and just because she happens to be the wife of accused No.1. Petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged transaction. The two cheques in question were not signed by her and they were not issued from her account. It is further contended by the learned counsel that a reading of the complaint itself will show that no specific allegation has Crl.MC.1780/06. 2 been made against the petitioner as regards the commission of the offence. 4. In this context it may at once be noticed that petitioner has produced only the copy of the complaint. In other words there is absolutely no other material to indicate that petitioner was not a party to the transaction either as a co-signatory or in any other capacity. If only the two cheques which had been dishonoured were made available for perusal, it would have helped the petitioner to substantiate her contention. 5. Anyhow I do not propose to deal with the above or other contentions raised by the petitioner at this stage, especially in the absence of any material before me which would prima facie indicate that petitioner has been implicated in the case with some ulterior motive. In my view, the petitioner has to necessarily approach the court below for appropriate reliefs, if so advised. If such a plea is made, it shall be considered by the court below in accordance with law. 6. Since the petitioner is a house wife, the court below need not insist for her personal appearance on all hearing dates. A prayer for exemption from appearance can be granted, if such a request is made. It is made clear that I have not considered the merit of any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Crl.M.C is closed in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.