Skip to content


A. Kalpana and Another Vs. P. Jeyakumar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCrl. O.P. (MD) No. 83 of 2011 & M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011
Judge
AppellantA. Kalpana and Another
RespondentP. Jeyakumar
Excerpt:
.....issued by the first petitioner/a.1 on behalf of the second petitioner/a.2, mr. n. mohideen basha, learned counsel for the petitioners/a.1 and a.2 would contend that the cheques in question have been obtained by way of coercion by utilising the services of the police and as such, the complaint is nothing, but false and concocted one and therefore, he prays for quashment of the same. 3. the learned counsel for the respondents is absent. 4. in the considered opinion of this court, whether the cheques in question have been issued by resorting to coercion or fraud cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure. however, admittedly, even as per the averments made in the impugned complaint, the cheques in question have.....
Judgment:

1. The petitioners are arrayed as A.1 and A.2 in S.T.C. No. 875 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai, instituted by the respondent seeking their prosecution for the commission of the offences under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. A perusal of the complaint would disclose, among other things, that in respect of the transaction, two cheques in question have been issued by the first petitioner/A.1 alone. Though it is averred that the first cheque was issued by the first petitioner/A.1 on behalf of the second petitioner/A.2, Mr. N. Mohideen Basha, learned Counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 would contend that the cheques in question have been obtained by way of coercion by utilising the services of the police and as such, the complaint is nothing, but false and concocted one and therefore, he prays for quashment of the same.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondents is absent.

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, whether the cheques in question have been issued by resorting to coercion or fraud cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, admittedly, even as per the averments made in the impugned complaint, the cheques in question have been signed and issued by the first petitioner/A.1 alone and since the second petitioner/A.2 is not the drawer of the cheques, he cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the offences under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore, this Court is of the view that the complaint insofar as the second petitioner/A.2 is concerned, is liable to be quashed.

5. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed and the case in S.T.C.No.875 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai, insofar as the second petitioner/A.2 is concerned, alone is quashed. It is made clear that the observations made herein above are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and this Court has not touched upon the merits of the case projected by the complainant and defence to be projected by the first petitioner/A.1. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

6. After the disposal of this petition, the learned Counsel for the first petitioner/A.1 would submit that since the first petitioner/A.1 is a lady and a resident of Chennai, it may not be possible for her to appear before the trial Court and therefore, he prays for dispensing with her personal appearance before the trial Court.

Accordingly, the personal appearance of the first petitioner/A.1 is dispensed with and she shall appear before the trial Court as and when her appearance is necessitated/ordered.

Appeal partly allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //