SUJATHA SREEKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. Proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent herein, admittedly a friend of her husband. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant had advanced an amount of Rs.2,42,000/- to the petitioner and for discharge of the said liability a cheque was handed over by the accused to the complainant. Admittedly there are other transactions between the complainant and the husband of the petitioner and the husband of the petitioner had issued cheques to the complainant. The relevant averments appear in paragraph 2, which I extract below for the sake of clarity in reproduction.

(2.) The petitioner complains that there was no transaction whatsoever between her and the complainant. The transaction was always between the husband of the petitioner and the complainant. Annex.I is the copy of three cheques, all issued by the petitioner's husband to the complainant. First of those is the subject matter of the present complaint. The other two are subject matters of other complaints against the husband of the petitioner by the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no cogent, specific or reasonable averment which can attract culpability against the petitioner herein.

(3.) It is important to ascertain what precisely is the allegation. There is no specific allegation that the accused made a representation that the cheque is being issued by her from her account to the complainant. The complainant could not obviously had assumed so. The other cheques in Annex.I clearly show that they were also issued by the husband of the petitioner to the complainant. In fact the averments extracted above would indicate that the complainant knew even at the time when the cheque was handed over that the signature in the cheque is that of the husband of the petitioner. It appears to be improbable and artificial, nay impossible that the complainant could have entertained any impression on the basis of the alleged misrepresentation that the cheque was being issued by the petitioner in her account to the complainant. Such a possibility does not appear to be available and the averments extracted above do not at all indicate such an allegation.