IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009/ Crl.MC.No. 2020 of 2006 --------------------------- CC.225/2006 of C.J.M.,THODUPUZHA PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------- GOPALAN,S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 60 YEARS, MANTHALIRUMPARAYIL, THODUPUZHA KARA THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. JYOTHI, W/O.JOJO,AGED 40 YEARS, THEKKEPARAMBIL,EDAMARUK KARA, UDUMPANOOR VILLAGE THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM FOR R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.MOHAMED SAJEER FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-10-2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2020 of 2006 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Petition filed for quashing complaint filed against petitioners as accused Nos.1 to 3 and also all further proceedings pursuant to such complaint. 2. A complaint is filed by the second respondent herein alleging various acts such as forgery, cheating etc. It is alleged in the complaint that the first accused is a financier who gave loan on high interest and the second and third petitioners work on behalf of a firm. The complainant's husband and his brother had some financial transaction with the first accused. Certain cheques which are signed used to be handed over as security but several transaction, the cheques were misused and forged entering the name of the third accused as payee. There were also civil cases pending against the first accused and complainant's brother-in-law and an attempt was made by the first accused through goondas etc. to evict the complainant and the family members from their property and a case was also registered on the basis of a complaint given by the complainant. Crl.M.C.No.2020 of 2006 2 3. A mediation was there and the accused had admitted transactions. But complaints are filed stating that the amounts were received by the complainant and the husband from the second accused on the strength of a promissory note and a cheque was also issued etc. A case was also filed, but the complainant has absolutely no connection or any transaction with the second accused. She had given a cheque in connection with the transaction with the first accused and her husband, as a security. But the said cheque and some blank papers were misused and forged by the accused to file cases against the complainant and her husband. Certain other transactions are also mentioned in the complaint and according to the complainant, the acts committed by the accused falls under Sections 420, 464, 471 and 34 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several allegations have made in the complaint but on reading of a complaint as a whole, it will reveal that no offence is made out as such. Admittedly, a prosecution for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is pending against the complainant and this complaint is filed only by a counterblast. Since a prosecution is pending on a separate complaint raising Crl.M.C.No.2020 of 2006 3 allegations relating to the same transaction this complaint will not be maintainable, it is further contended. Petitioner seeks to quash the complaint and the further proceedings against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the first accused filed a suit against the complainant's brother-in-law and this fact is mentioned at the complaint itself. The complainant took up the same contentions in the said suit and the suit was dismissed. A counter claim was made by the complainant stating that only `50,000/- was borrowed and that the defendant is to prepare to pay the same. The counter claim was allowed also. It is also submitted that on a reading of the complaint, it will be clear prima facie that, blank cheques which were handed over to the first accused were misused to file false complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and that the signed blank cheques were forged also. 6. On hearing both sides, and on going through the complaint, I cannot be said that the allegations made therein will not prima facie constitute any offence. I am satisfied that the petitioner can be proceeded against on the basis of the complaint as already done by the trial court. I do not find any Crl.M.C.No.2020 of 2006 4 impropriety or any illegality in proceedings initiated against the petitioner. But I am not going through the specific details to enter and finding as to which offence is made out etc. There are allegations in the complaint which will prima facie constitute certain offences of the IPC and hence it may not be proper for this court to quash the proceedings. However, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I make it clear that petitioner will be entitled to raise all contentions raised in this Crl.M.C. before the trial court at the appropriate stage. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE cms