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. 2822 of 2007() ------------------------- CC.818/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED: --------------------------- SUKUMARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. RAMANKUTTY, RESIDING AT PADIKKAL HOUSE, CHITTANCHERRY POST, MELARKODE VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.G.D.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINIANT-STATE: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.J. JOHN SINGH, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. K.U. JOHN, RESIDING AT KABEER TARRACE, P.O. MOGRAL, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 3116 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.Nos. 2822 of 2007 & 3116 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner, along with his wife, faces indictment in two separate prosecutions, both under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and both initiated by the same complainant. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate and at this stage the petitioner has come to this Court with the grievance that the proceedings initiated against him is totally unjustified. He is not the holder of that account. The account is held by his wife. In as much as the petitioner is not the one maintaining the account with the bank, these prosecutions under Section 138 of the Act against him are not justified at all. Except that he happens to be the husband of the account holder, he has no other connection with the transaction. At any rate, the prosecution against the petitioner is not justified in as much as he does not maintain any account with the bank as to attract liability under Section 138 of the Act. Crl.M.C.Nos. 2822 of 2007 & 3116 of 2008 2 2. To resolve the controversy, the learned counsel for the petitioner (He has appeared through different counsel in these petitions) has filed Annex.5 communication from the bank, which clarifies that the account is maintained solely in the name of the wife of the petitioner and not in his name. No valid or legal ground exists to insist that the petitioner must face such a prosecution. 4. These Crl.M.Cs. are allowed. C.C.744 of 2006 and 818 of 2006 pending before the C.J.M., Kasargod in which the petitioner is one of the two accused, both initiated by the second respondent/complainant, is hereby quashed. Proceedings against the co-accused, needless to say, shall continue. (R. BASANT) Judge tm