CLARA DOMINIC Vs. TOMY EAPEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 5023 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pala ("Trial Court", for short). The case arises from AnnexureA2 complaint filed by the 1st respondent, alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("N.I. Act", for brevity).

(2.) The petitioner contends in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, inter alia, that AnnexureA1 document produced along with the complaint is not a cheque, but a withdrawal slip of the Kanjirapally Central Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Society"). According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent had surreptitiously taken possession of the said withdrawal slip, manipulated it into a cheque, presented it for encashment, and, upon its dishonour, filed the present complaint. It is further urged that the Society does not fall within the definition of a "banker" under Sec. 3 of the N.I. Act and is not licensed by the Reserve Bank of India. A withdrawal slip does not answer the description of a "cheque" within the meaning of Sec. 6 of the N.I. Act. Hence, the very foundation of the prosecution is legally untenable, warranting the quashing of the complaint.

(3.) I have heard Sri. C.S. Bissimon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Jacob Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent; and Smt. Seetha S., learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Having regard to the nature of the controversy, and since the Society is only a formal party, notice to the 3rd respondent Society is dispensed with.