IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1862 of 2005 ------------------------- ST.423/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV (MOBILE), TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------------- SMT. NAINA MUHAMMED, T.C.14/1255, OBSERVATORY HILL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD., P.O.BOX NO.2244, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, BIJU JONES, AGED 30, S/O.N.DANIEL JOHN, COLLECTION OFFICER, HSBC BANK, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.P.J.ANTONY SRI.VARGHESE BABU R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 1862 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of August 2008 O R D E R The 1st respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thodupuzha for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). The complaint was that the three cheques issued by the petitioner for the discharge of the debt were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and that in spite of the statutory notice intimating the dishonour and demanding payment, the petitioner did not pay the amount. Petitioner seeks intervention of this Court invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C since according to her, the complaint did not disclose any offence. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the petitioner has discharged the liability by making certain payments. My attention is invited to Annexure B which according to the petitioner evidenced the payment. 4. Even if it is assumed that the liability has subsequently been Crl.M.C: 1862/2005 -:2:- discharged, that was after the filing of the complaint. The alleged discharge of the liability comes after the commission of the offence was completed. The payment if any, does not obliterate the offence. In that situation, this Court is not required to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. No other point arises for consideration. Petition fails. It is dismissed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) ttb