GEETHA MOHANKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a woman, faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. On coming to know of the pendency of the prosecution under Section 138 of the Act, she has rushed to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. She prays that the prosecution initiated against her may be quashed.

(2.) What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently the payee bank has taken steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security and Interest Act and the property is now in the possession of the bank.

(3.) How can that be a valid ground to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque cannot be held to be negotiable now as the complainant/payee had already taken steps under the Securitisation Act. I am unable to accept this contention at all. Even if the amounts were paid later after the elapse of 15 days, the offence under Section 138 will continue to remain and quashing of proceedings will not be justified. Subsequent payment or attachment of the property for enforcement of the liability or initiation of proceedings under the Securitisation Act or any other more expedient procedure will not by itself obliterate the culpable liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In these circumstances I do not find any merit in the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. This Crl.M.C. deserves to be dismissed.