IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3278 of 2008() ----------------------------------- S.T.NO.338/2008 JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT V, ERNAKULAM .......................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- LILLY PIUS, W/O.PIUS GEORGE, POKKATHU HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O., CHOONDY, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) SMT.A.A.GEETHA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE OF KERALA: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ING VYSYA BANK LTD., RETAIL BANKING DIVISION, SHEMA BUILDING, RAVIPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, RAVEENDRA PAI CBD, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB FOR R2 ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3278 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The crux of the allegations is that she issued four cheques to the complainant, which on presentation were dishonoured with an endorsement that the account stands closed. On the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. 2. The petitioner has come to this court with a prayer that the prosecution against her may be quashed in as much as she is not the account holder and the cheques in question were not signed by her. The crucial question is whether the petitioner is the account holder and had issued the cheques in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner/ accused is not the account holder. The account holder is the Proprietor, Benzer Tekno Lines – Sri.Pius George, who is her Crl.M.C.No. 3278 of 2008 2 husband. He is the account holder and the cheques in question have been signed by him. The relevant documents from the bank have been produced in support of this assertion that the petitioner is not the account holder and the cheques in question were not signed by her. 3. Called upon to respond to this contention, the counsel for the petitioner contends that a loan was availed from the complainant bank in the name of the petitioner herein and it is she who had handed over the cheques. That contention is not sufficient at all to fasten liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on the petitioner. Under Section 138 of the Act the liability is on the drawer of the cheque in respect of a cheque drawn on an account maintained by him. In the instant case, there is no dispute even, raised before me that the account holder is not the petitioner, but her husband. Annex.F document produced from the bank clearly shows the acceptability of this assertion by the petitioner. The original cheques in question, which have been shown to me, clearly show that the cheques were signed by the Proprietor, Benzer Tekno Lines, the account holder, who is none other than the husband of the petitioner. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the Crl.M.C.No. 3278 of 2008 3 prosecution against the petitioner is liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. This Crl.M.C. is allowed. S.T. 338 of 2008 pending against the petitioner before J.F.M.C. - V, Ernakulam is hereby quashed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm