Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19117 = 2024(1) L.A.R. 393
Decided on: 05.04.2024
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jaimon Andrews, Adv., Mr. P.V. Vinod, Adv., Ms. Piyo Harold, Adv., Mr. Anna Dommen, Adv., Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR, Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv., Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv., Mr. Shivam Sai, Adv., Mr. A. Raghunath, AOR
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bonce case – Quashing of complaint -- Though the prayer for quashing was made only as regards first and second respondents, by the impugned judgment, the complaint has been quashed in its entirety – Held, there was no reason for the High Court to quash the complaint in its entirety -- Impugned order modified.
(Para 3-5)
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant is the complainant in a complaint filed under 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short N.I. Act). There were total 13 accused in the complaint. The first and second respondents herein are the accused nos. 12 and 13 respectively, filed a petition under Section 482 under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C) for quashing the complaint. Though the prayer for quashing was made only as regards first and second respondents, by the impugned judgment, the complaint has been quashed in its entirety. While issuing notice on 06.09.2023, we have clarified that no case was made out to interfere as regard second respondent (accused no. 13).
4. The Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 14 (who are the other accused in the complaint) submits that going by the findings recorded under the impugned Judgment, a case is made out for quashing the complaint as against the said accused as well, as they stand on the same footing as accused nos. 12 and 13.
5. On perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court was called upon to decide the grievance of only the respondent nos. 1 and 2 (accused nos. 12 and 13). Therefore, there was no reason for the High Court to quash the complaint in its entirety when no other accused save and except accused nos. 12 and 13 applied for quashing of the complaint. As noted by the learned Judge of the High Court, accused no.12 is alleged to be a Joint Managing partner of the Partnership Firm. As far as accused no.13 is concerned, it is alleged that he is merely a partner. According to us, the learned Judge is committed an error in quashing the complaint in its entirety considering the prayer in the petition for quashing. A case was made out to quash the complaint only in sofar as the accused no. 13 is concerned. Hence, we pass the following order:
The impugned order is modified by declaring that the complaint stands quashed only against accused no.13 (Kakkantavida Fajarah). This order will not prevent the respondent nos. 5 to 14 from filing appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for quashing the complaint.
6. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
Appeal partly allowed.
********