MYMOONATH BEEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common petitioner in all these criminal miscellaneous cases is the common 3rd accused in 8 private complaints filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-1, Ernakulam The common 2nd respondent in all these Crl M Cs. is the common complainant in all the private complaints referred to above The said complainant is a proprietary concern by name "International Trade Links", Ernakulam. As per the said private complaints produced as Annexure A1 in each of these cases, the 2nd respondent herein has sought to prosecute a partnership firm by name "M/s Star Trading", Kochi, which is the 1st accused One Ah and his wife, who is the petitioner herein, are the Managing partner and partner respectively of the said firm and they are arrayed as accused Nos 2 and 3 respectively. The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act" for short)

(2.) In each of the said private complaints, the complainant has inter aha alleged that the 2nd and 3rd accused who are the Managing Partner and Partner respectively of the 1st accused firm are collectively looking after the affairs of the firm, that they are jointly and severally responsible for the business transactions of the said firm and that they are jointly liable for the consequences arising from the dishonour of the 8 cheques in question

(3.) On receipt of summons from the Court below, the petitioner herein entered appearance before Court and filed applications requesting the Magistrate to drop the proceedings so far as they relate to the petitioner herein contending that she is not a signatory to the cheques in question and that she has no direct involvement in the business of the 1st accused firm There is no dispute that when the above applications were filed by the petitioner, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KM. Mathew v State of Kerala, entitling the Magistrate to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused notwithstanding the issue of process against the accused, was holding the field. As per separate but identical orders dated 2 9 2004, the learned Magistrate dismissed the applications holding inter aha that the issues cannot be adjudicated until adducing evidence, but reserving the right of the petitioner to urge her objection at a later stage The relevant portion of the Order of the Magistrate reads as follows