IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2982 of 2008() --------------------------------------- C.C.NO.874 OF 2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS NO.III, THRISSUR. ................. PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- T.P.DIAZ, S/O.T.T. PYLUNNI, OLLUKKARA DESOM & VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAN P.S., S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, CHELAPPURATH PUTHEN VEETTIL HOUSE, KUTTUMUCK, SURYA NAGAR, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2982 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the prosecution against him may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the account stood closed even prior to the date which the cheque bears and, in these circumstances, it cannot be held that the cheque was issued on an account maintained by the drawer with the bank. The question is not any more open to contest and it has been held clearly in the Crl.M.C. No. 2982 of 2008 -: 2 :- decisions of the Division Bench and the single Judge in Vathsan v. Japahari (2003(3) KLT 972) and Salim v. Thomas (2004 (1) KLT 816) that the mere fact that an account is closed is no reason to quash a prosecution under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. The account continues to be maintained until all the unused cheques are surrendered before the bank, it has been held. That contention cannot help the petitioner to persuade this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 4. One more contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is inadequacy in the notice inasmuch as out of the two numbers shown in the complaint, only one is referred to in the notice. In short, the contention is that the account number alone is shown in the notice and the cheque number which is shown in the complaint is not shown in the notice. This is certainly not a contention which can justify the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. The petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and raise such contentions in defence before the learned Magistrate. 5. I am not, in these circumstances, persuaded to agree that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Crl.M.C. No. 2982 of 2008 -: 3 :- Cr.P.C,. can, ought to be or deserves to be invoked in favour of the petitioner. 6. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge