P SAJITH KUMAR Vs. I P SOMASEKHARA NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant who describes himself as the Manager of Kerala Chitty Fund. It is admitted at all hands that prior to the initiation of proceedings, notice of demand under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued. The same was duly received and reply was issued to the said notice on behalf of the petitioner/accused. A copy of the said notice and the reply notice have been placed before me by the learned counsel. In the complaint, it is alleged that the cheque in question is issued for the discharge of a debt due to the complaint.

(2.) The petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has come to this court with the prayer that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) What is the ground? The short ground raised in this petition is that the cheque has not been issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability. The short contention raised by the petitioner is that there is no legally enforcible debt/liability to discharge which the cheque has been issued. According to the petitioner, the price money paid to a chit subscriber cannot be reckoned as a legally enforcible debt/liability which the subscriber should pay to the chitty company. Reliance is placed on certain precedents of this aspect.