IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 741 of 2005() ------------------------ ST.1918/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ---------------------- LEO SYLVESTER GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE P.JOSEPH, PUNNACKAL HOUSE, CHELLANAM SOUTH P.O., KOCHI-8. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN SRI.NELSON J.MANAYIL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- M/S. SREERAM INVESTMENTS LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, SUNSHINE COMPLEX, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD REP.BY ASSISTANT BRANCH MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.M.K.SUMERSH S/O. P.K.PADMANABHAN NAIR. ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.741 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act at the instance of the respondent herein. Petitioner seeks to quash the above proceedings pending against him by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended by the petitioner that the attempt of the complainant is to enrich himself by misusing a blank signed cheque handed over by the petitioner at the time when a vehicle was purchased by him under a hire purchase agreement executed in the year 2001. 2. The case of the complainant as revealed from Anneuxre-1 may be briefly noticed: 3. Accused had executed a hire purchase agreement in favour of the complainant in respect of a bus bearing Registration No.KL-7Q-2878. Accused committed default in re-payment of the hire charges. According to the complainant, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.266381 drawn on the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd, M.G. Road Branch, Ernakulam dated January 31, 2004 for Rs.39,184/- in favour of the complainant towards the hire charges. But, when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. In spite 2 Crl.M.C.No.741/05 of issuance of statutory demand notice the accused did not discharge the liability. Hence, the complaint. 4. The learned magistrate had issued process to the accused after examining the complainant. 5. It is admitted by the petitioner that he had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the complainant in 2001. But according to him, after sometime he had transferred the vehicle to one Anilkumar, who in turn had transferred it to one Mr. Pious from Alwaye. Sri. Anilkumar had paid a sum of Rs.2,50,688/= to the complainant as agreed by him. Later, Sri. Pious, who had purchased the vehicle from Anilkumar, had also committed default in payment of the instalments. Sri. Pious had sold the vehicle to one Janardhanan Perinjanam. According to the petitioner, Sri. Janardhanan at the time of purchase of the bus had discharged the entire liability to the company. 6. Petitioner has produced Annexure-A2 document containing the details of vehicle registration, hire purchase particulars etc. Annexure-A2 is issued by the office of the Assistant Registering Authority, Mattancheri. In Annexure-A2, it can be seen that the hire purchase agreement in respect of the vehicle had been cancelled. The relevant entry in Anneuxre-A2 is extracted hereunder: “R2/02025/04/EMT The existing HPA with Shriram Investments Ltd., Palakkad-14 is cancelled wef. 1.3.2004. (1.3.2004) Sd/- ARA, Mattanchery.” 3 Crl.M.C.No.741/05 7. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had received all the outstanding dues in respect of the vehicle as is revealed from the above endorsement in Anneuxre-A2. Similarly, Annexure-A3, which is a Form 35 notice of termination of hire purchase agreement, will also show that the complainant had informed the registering authority that it had no objection in cancelling the entry in the registration certificate as regards the hire purchase agreement. But, according to the petitioner, the complainant had filed the complaint against the petitioner on April 26, 2004, suppressing the fact that the entire dues under the hire purchase agreement had been received by it. 8. I have carefully perused the averments in the complaint and also Annexure-A4 lawyer notice issued by the petitioner in response to the statutory demand notice sent by the complainant prior to the institution of the complaint. It is evident from the materials available on record that there is considerable force in the contention raised by the petitioner that the complainant had misused one of the blank signed cheques handed over by the petitioner at the time of execution of the hire purchase agreement. 9. In this context, it has also to be mentioned that the complainant had not produced the relevant files, though such a specific request was made on behalf of the petitioner in the course of hearing of this case. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the relevant file could not be 4 Crl.M.C.No.741/05 traced out. If only the file had been produced, the complainant could have shown that certain amounts were due from the hirer or his successor and that the cheque which is the subject matter of this complaint was duly executed by the petitioner/accused in discharge of an existing and legally enforceable debt or liability. In the absence of any such material before this Court, I am satisfied that the inherent power available with this Court under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked as otherwise it may result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.T.No.1918/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I are quashed. Crl.M.C. is allowed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) cl 5 Crl.M.C.No.741/05