IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 6971 of 2001(B) ----------------------------- CC.322/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER:ACCUSED NO.5 ------------------------------- DEEPA RAGHU, ANJALI, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682 025. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.BIJU SMT.HEMA ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED 1,2,3 & 4: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJAN MANI, S/O.K.O.MANI, KANIYATTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KARIKKUNNAM.P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. M/S.VALLAT PLASTICS, 35TH MILE, KOKKAYAR KARA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER RENJITH VALLAT, S/O.HARIDAS, VALLAT HOUSE,MUNDAKKAYAM EAST.P.O., URUMBIKARA KARA, KOKKAYAR VILLAGE. 3. RENJITH VALLAT, S/O.HARIDAS, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.VALLAT PLASTICS, MUNDAKKAYAM EAST .P.O., URUMBIKARA KARA, KOKKAYAR VILLAGE. 4. RAJESH VALLAT, PARTNER, M/S.VALLAT PLASTICS, MUNDAKKAYAM EAST P.O., 35TH MILS, KOKKAYAR VILLAGE. 5. SAROJINI HARIDAS, W/O.HARIDAS, PARTNER, M/S.VALLAT PLASTICS, VALLAT HOUSE, MUNDAKKAYAM EAST.P.O., KOKKAYAR VILLAGE. 6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUALAM. ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.ROSHIN IPE JOSEPH FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 6971 of 2001-B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the13th day of August, 2009 ORDER Petitioner who is an erstwhile partner of M/s.Vallat Plastics is being prosecuted along with the firm and other partners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.322 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, No. III, Kottayam. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that she had ceased to be a partner of the firm way back in the year 1996. Going by the averments in the complaint, it is seen that the cheque in question was issued in the year 2000. Annexure A1 partnership deed dated December 15, 1986 will show that the partnership was constituted for a specified period of 10 years. Annexure A2 will show that the petitioner had retired from the partnership and the partnership was reconstituted. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant and having perused the materials available on record, I am satisfied that there is no justification in prosecuting the petitioner for the alleged offence in the proceedings before the court below. Therefore the proceedings against the petitioner in CC.No.322/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate pf First Class - No.3, Kottayam are quashed. Crl.M.C is allowed. Communicate the order of to the court below forthwith. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.