IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3611 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CC.317/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.317/2008 OF JFCM, THALASSERY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. SRIDHAR, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, KOUNDANYA HOUSE, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN MR.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT NO.1/COMPLAINANT IN C.C.NO.317/2008 OF JFCM, THALASSERY/ RESPONDENT NO.2/NOT A PARTY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.C. RAJAGOPAL, S/O. LATE O.C.G NAMBIAR, ACCOUNTANT, RAJAPURAM, P.O. ERUVATY, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.NARAYANAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3611 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 7th August 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the fourth accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.317/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint as against petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that as evidenced by Annexure-B certified copy of form 32 issued by Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, petitioner resigned as Director of the accused Company w.e.f 28/6/2006 and as the dishonoured cheque was issued subsequently on 30/12/2007 petitioner cannot be prosecuted as he has nothing to do with the company on the date of the alleged commission of the offence. 4. Learned counsel appearing for first CRMC 3611/2008 2 respondent pointed out that it is specifically alleged in Annexure-A complaint that petitioner along with third accused are signatories to the dishonoured cheque and therefore for the reason that petitioner resigned from the company as claimed the case cannot be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is not signatory to the cheque and signatures seen in the cheque are not his signatures but the signatures are that of the accused 3 and 6. Question whether signatures in the dishonoured cheque is that of petitioner or the sixth accused cannot be decided in this petition. If petitioner was not a signatory to the dishonoured cheque and he had already resigned from the Director Board of the company, prior to the date of issuance of the cheque he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. But when the complaint discloses that petitioner is a signatory to the dishonoured cheque, it is not possible to quash the complaint as sought for, as it is a matter for evidence. Hence petition is dismissed. Petitioner is CRMC 3611/2008 3 entitled to raise all the questions before the learned Magistrate. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.