IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2232 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CMP 2104/2009 IN CC.52/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- ANITHA RAJENDRAN, D/O. DR. J.R.LEELA, PROPRIETRIX, SHANTA AYURVEDIC PRODUCTS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.B.SATHIQ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PARVATHY, D/O. AKILANDOM, T.C. NO. 15/553, JAGATHY, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2232 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.52/2007 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. First respondent filed a complaint, which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. It discloses that towards the value of Ayurvedic products purchased by the petitioner, she issued cheques, which were dishonoured on the ground that petitioner does not have any such account and in spite of notice sent demanding amount, petitioner did not pay the amount and it was alleged that she committed an offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 2. After framing charge for the offence under Section 420, the Manager of the Bank was examined. It was brought out that the reason shown for dishonouring the cheques is not correct and petitioner is having an account, in which the cheque was issued. In the light of that evidence, C.M.P.No.2104/2009 was filed by the CRMC 2232/09 2 first respondent to alter the charge for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Under Annexure-3 order, learned Magistrate allowed the petition and altered the charge for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act holding that all other statutory formalities required under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act are complied with. This petition is filed challenging the said order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 4. The argument of the learned counsel is that when complaint was filed alleging an offence under Section 420 of Indian penal Code and cognizance was taken on that offence and evidence was partly recorded, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in altering the charge on an application filed by the first respondent for an offence under Section 138 and therefore, it is to be quashed. 5. Annexure-3 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that after dishonour of the cheques, notice in writing was sent by the first respondent CRMC 2232/09 3 within the statutory period demanding the amount covered by the dishonoured cheques and complaint was also filed before the Magistrate within the statutory period on failure of the petitioner to pay the amount. It is after finding that original complaint was within the statutory period as provided under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, learned Magistrate altered the charge for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. I find no reason to interfere with that order. Petitioner is at liberty to canvass before the Chief Judicial Magistrate that an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is not attracted. Petitioner is also entitled to challenge the order along with the final order, if warranted. Petition is dismissed. 9th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv