IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 236 of 2006() ------------------------ CRIME NO.1234/05 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------ SELINE VASANTHA BAI, PROPRIETRIX, JUSTIN AND CO., 7/76, SUGUNA NAGAR, KAUNDAPALAYAM, COIMBATORE. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JYOTHISH J.KALLINGAL RESPONDENT(S)/ STATE &COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. E.M.LAL, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.CABLES AND CONDUCTORS, 35/1873 LAKSHMI VIHAR, VALANJAMBALAM, KOCHI-16. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.KAMMAPPU FOR R1 ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM FOR R2 SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.434/06 IN CRL.M.C.NO.236/06 //DISMISSED// 24.2.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.M.C.NO. 236 of 2006 ======================= Dated this the 24th day of February 2009 ORDER This petition is filed by the accused in Crime No.1234/2005 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam registered on 11-12-2005 at the instance of the second respondent for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal code. The prayer made in this petition is to quash Annexure-A3 F.I.R. in the above crime and all further proceedings against the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The facts of the case as stated in this petition are as follows:- The petitioner is running a business in electrification and she is permanently residing at Coimbatore. The petitioner had undertaken electrical contract in southern railway and for executing that work she used to purchase electrical goods from CRMC. 236/2006 -2- the second respondent who is a dealer in electrical goods. It is alleged in this petition that for the purpose of availing short term credit for the electrical goods purchased from the second respondent, the petitioner had entrusted two blank signed cheques with the second respondent. On completion of the contract with Southern Railway, the 2nd respondent claimed Rs.26,353/- from the petitioner as the amount due to 2nd respondent. The petitioner did not make payment since some of the electrical goods supplied by the 2nd respondent were defective. Thereafter, the said amount was inserted by 2nd respondent in one of the two blank cheques entrusted by the petitioner putting the date as 10-9-2002 and presented before the bank which was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed C.C.No.2047/2002 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on 19-11-2002 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. Certified copy of the complaint in that case is produced as Annexure-A1.Then the 2nd respondent issued a letter dated 14-2-2005 alleging that Rs.1.5 lakhs is due from the petitioner. Copy of that letter is CRMC. 236/2006 -3- produced as Annexure-A2. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed a false complaint before Ernakulam Town South Police Station alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C.and registered Crime No.442/2005 against the petitioner which was sent to Ernakulam Central Police Station and re-registered as Crime No.1234/2005. Copy of the F.I.R. dated 11-12-2005 is produced as Annexure-A3 which is illegal and unsustainable and a clear abuse of process of law. Hence, this petition is filed to set aside the same. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed by the second respondent herein against the petitioner in respect of a cheque dated 10-9-2002 for Rs.26,353/- was proceeded with and the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is pending in appeal. In respect of the other cheque, complaint has been preferred by the 2nd respondent without any bona fides and Annexure-A3 F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner. Even according to the complainant, the date of incident was mentioned as 13-1-2001 and the cheque mentioned in Annexure-A3 was for Rs.one lakh after a lapse of four years CRMC. 236/2006 -4- and 11 months, i.e. 11-12-2005. Thus it is submitted that the F.I.R.,Annexure-A3 was lodged with a view to compel the petitioner to settle Annexure-AI complaint and only to harass the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, no sufficient ingredients are there to attract the offence under Section 420 of I.PC. Annexure-A2 letter dated 14-2-2005 is relied on by the petitioner to show that demand was made by the second respondent to the petitioner on 14-2-2005 to settle payment of Rs.1.5 lakhs which was due for the last four years as mentioned therein. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been disputed by the learned counsel for the second respondent. 5. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that some business transactions were there between the petitioner and the second respondent. The only grievance of the petitioner was that some of the goods delivered by the second respondent to the petitioner were defective and hence no reply has been sent by the petitioner after receipt of Annexure-A2 notice admittedly received by her. It was the contention of the petitioner that blank cheque was given by her and the electrical goods were CRMC. 236/2006 -5- handed over by the second respondent on believing the words of the petitioner. Therefore, prima facie case of cheating is there and the F.I.R.has been registered against the petitioner. The investigation has not been proceeded in pursuance of Annexure- A3 F.I.R.due to the stay order of this Court. No sufficient ground is made out in this petition to quash the F.I.R.at this preliminary stage by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Whether the offence as alleged by the second respondent has been committed by the petitioner etc. will be decided by the court below after considering the evidence to be adduced on the side of the prosecution and on the defence side. In these circumstances, I find that this petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Crl.M.C.is dismissed. Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.