IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2675 OF 2009() ----------------------------------------------- CMP.865/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------- P.VIDYA, T.C.45/4054, SHANKAR BHAVAN, PALAYATHU LANE, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE --------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAGOPAL, PLOT NO.8, SUBHASH NAGAR, PARUNTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. V.SWARNA, W/O.N.RAJAGOPAL, PLOT NO.8, SUBHASH NAGAR, PARUNTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2675 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.5.2009 on C.M.P.No.865 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram. That was a complaint preferred by petitioner against respondent Nos.1 and 2 alleging offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner on the representation made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that they are holding joint account with the drawee bank, petitioner advanced Rs.5,00,000/- to them for repayment of which respondent No.2 issued the cheque. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Though notice was issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 they sent a reply denying the allegations. Thereon petitioner filed complaint against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Respondent No.1 challenged the complaint as against him in this Court in M.C. No.2624 of 2005. This Court allowed that petition and quashed the complaint to the extent it concerned respondent No.1. In the meantime petitioner filed C.M.P. No.865 of 2009 as stated CRL. R.P. No.2675 of 2009 -: 2 :- above, against respondent Nos.1 and 2. On that complaint learned magistrate recorded sworn statement of petitioner and two witnesses. Learned magistrate was of the view that there is no ground to proceed against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That order is under challenge in this revision. It is contended by learned counsel that learned magistrate was not correct in holding that there is no sufficient ground to proceed. It is also contended that in the reply sent by respondent Nos.1 and 2 it was not stated that the account is of respondent No.2 alone. 2. I have gone through the sworn statement of complainant and witnesses. C.W.1 stated that the cheque in question was issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2. But according to C.W.3, cheque was signed only by respondent No.2 though he claimed that respondent No.1 stated that he has joint account with respondent No.2. But fact remained that cheque is signed only by respondent No.2. If any such representation was made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and petitioner believed the same, necessarily she would have verified whether the cheque was signed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and if not signed by respondent No.2, cross checked the matter with respondent Nos.1 and CRL. R.P. No.2675 of 2009 -: 3 :- 2 at the time of transaction itself. In other words, it was possible for petitioner to see from the cheque itself whether it was signed only by respondent No.2. Learned magistrate adverted to that circumstance to hold that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Having gone through the order under challenge I find no reason to interfere with the same. It is made clear that dismissal of the complaint in this case shall not have any bearing on the contention raised by petitioner in the case pending against respondent No.2 under Sec.138 of the Act. Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observation. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv