IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2430 of 2010(C) ----------------------- -------- CC.215/2008 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O) COURT, ERNAKULAM) .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3 & 4 ------------------------------------------ 1. MRS.S.RENUKA, W/O.P.CHANDRAN, DIRECTOR, NATCHART PVT.LTD., G.195, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-16. 2. MRS.N.V.AMMA, W/O.LATE M.S.P.NAIR, DIRECTOR, NATCHART PVT.LTD., G.208, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. TRIUNE FREIGHT PVT.LTD., LINGHI CHETTI STREET, CHENNAI-1. REP.BY ITS AREA MANAGER MR.BOBBY POYIL, M/S TRIUNE FREIGHT PVT.LTD., INTUC WELFARE BUILDING, VENKITARAMAN ROAD, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-3. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2430 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are accused 3 and 4 in C.C.No. 215/2008 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on Annexure-A1 complaint filed by the second respondent. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that they have no connection with the dishonoured cheque or the transaction and even as per the complaint, the accused were only the employees and they discontinued their service of the company and petitioners have nothing to do with issuance of the cheque and therefore, the case as against the petitioners is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. Though notice was served on CRMC 2430/10 2 the second respondent, he did not appear or dispute the case of the petitioners. 3. Annexure-A1 complaint, taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, shows that the case of the second respondent in paragraph 2 of the complaint is that second accused, while working as Managing Director of the first accused company, obtained a loan of Rs.1,30,000/- for the company and petitioners, namely, accused 3 and 4, were the Directors of the company. In paragraph 3, it is alleged that second accused, being the Managing Director of the Company, issued the cheque towards repayment of the amount and it was dishonoured and later, on the representation of the second accused that it will be honoured, the cheque was again presented for encashment and it was dishonoured once again and in spite of notice demanding the amount, it was not paid. On a reading of the complaint, it is clear that petitioners were implicated only for the reason that they were the CRMC 2430/10 3 Directors of the first accused company. Though, in paragraph 7 of the complaint, it is stated that accused 3 and 4 were the Directors and Managing Director was in charge of the conduct of the business of the first accused company at the time when the cheque was issued, said allegations itself show that second accused, who is the Managing Director of the Company, was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The cheque was issued not by the petitioners, but by the second accused. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioners is only an abuse of process of the court. Petition is allowed. The cognizance taken for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.215/2008 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam against the petitioners is quashed. 13th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv