IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 418 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.205/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MANNARKAD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------ SHINY JOSEPH (SHINY ANIL), W/O. ANIL PALAKATTUKUNNEL, KALLAR , BALAGRAM THUKKUPALAM, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. THOMAS TOM, S/O. LATE K.A. THOMAS KANDATHILKARA HOUSE, POMBRA P.O. KARAKURISSI VIA. MANNARKADU, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 418 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2002 as is revealed from the number assigned to the case i.e. C.C. 205 of 2002. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. Coercive processes issued by the learned Magistrate are chasing the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, she is not the signatory in the cheque, nor is she the authorised representative of the firm M/s. Maksi Foods and Oils, whose authorised signatory is shown to have signed the cheque. The petitioner is not the authorised signatory of the said firm. In these circumstances the prosecution against the petitioner may be quashed. This is the first prayer. 3. How can this court at the moment and with the available inputs accept the contention of the petitioner that she is not the signatory in Annex.3 cheque or that she is not the authorised Crl.M.C.No. 418 of 2009 2 signatory of the firm. No satisfactory answer is forthcoming. Except the assertion of the petitioner that she is not the signatory and she is not the authorised signatory of the firm, there is nothing tangible which can help this court to resolve the said controversy now. The petitioner must raise this contention before the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate findings. 4. The petitioner wants to claim the advantage of the decisions in Jain Babu v. Joseph (2008 (4) KLT 16) and Rohit S. Ved v. State of Kerala (2008 (3) KLT 748). It is for the petitioner to make necessary application before the learned Magistrate and claim such benefits. Without and before staking a claim for the benefits in the dicta in the said decisions referred above, her application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained. Needless to say, if such a claim is staked, the learned Magistrate will have to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 5. With the above observations this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I make it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way Crl.M.C.No. 418 of 2009 3 fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate contentions before the learned Magistrate in the course of the trial. 6. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm