B. KANAKAMMA KUNJAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the present 4th accused in C.C. No. 219/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I. Mavelikkara to quash the proceedings as against her under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the second respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner and four others alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegation in the complaint was that accused Nos. 2 and 4 as Directors of the first accused company issued the disputed cheque for Rs. 2 lakhs in favour of the second respondent, which on presentation dishonoured and in spite of notice issued, the amount was not paid and thereby all of them, who according to the complainant are the Directors of the first accused company, have committed the above said offence. After enquiry, the learned Magistrate originally took the case on file as C.C. No. 142/2010 under Section 138 of the Act against five accused persons including the present petitioner. But it is seen from Annexure A2 judgment that except the original 4th accused, non entered appearance in that case and after considering the materials available on record, the learned Magistrate by Annexure A2 judgment acquitted the original 4th accused in the complaint alleging that there is no material produced by the complainant to show that he is having any control over the management of the first accused company in the day to day administration as required under Section 141 of the Act and acquitted him under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter the case against the other accused persons including the present petitioner was split up and re-filed as C.C. No. 219/2013. It is alleged in the petition that there is no allegation against the present petitioner also in that complaint. So she is also entitled to get the same benefit. She has also submitted that she had not received any notice in the case. Since there is no allegation in the complaint regarding her, no purpose will be served by allowing the case to continue. So, she has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:

(3.) Though notice was issued to the second respondent and it was served on him, he remained absent.