LAWS(KER)-2017-9-113

SHAKKIRA ABOOBACKER, W/O. ABOOBACKER, VALIYIL HOUSE, VATTAMKULAM, CHAIRPERSON, USHUS EDUCATION TRUST, P.O. VATTAMKULAM, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT Vs. U. CHEKKUTTY, S/O. KUNHIMOHAMMED, OOROTTUTHODI HOUSE, PATHAYAKKALLU

Decided On September 22, 2017
Shakkira Aboobacker, W/O. Aboobacker, Valiyil House, Vattamkulam, Chairperson, Ushus Education Trust, P.O. Vattamkulam, Edappal, Malappuram District Appellant
V/S
U. Chekkutty, S/O. Kunhimohammed, Oorottuthodi House, Pathayakkallu Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order under challenge in this petition is the one issued by the trial court at Annexure-A5 dated 28.1.2015 rendered on Crl.M.P.No.9893 of 2014 in S.T.C.No.125 of 2011 whereby the trial court (Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Tirur) has allowed the application submitted by the first respondent/complainant for amendment of the complaint. The first respondent is the complainant and the petitioner is the accused in the above said S.T.C.No.125 of 2011 wherein the offence alleged is the one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The alleged dishonoured cheque dated 3.1.2011 is for Rs. 2,00,000/-.

(2.) Heard Sri.P.Jayaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, Sri.P.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for R1/complainant and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned prosecutor appearing for R2/State.

(3.) The first respondent/complainant had filed Annexure-A1 complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which the petitioner herein had arrayed as accused. According to the averments in Annexure-A1 complaint, the first respondent had advanced an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the accused on the latter's request and on condition that it should be repaid as and when demanded and that on discharge of the said liability, the instant cheque dated 3.1.2011 was executed by the petitioner in favour of the complainant and the same was handed over to the complainant on the same day. Since the first respondent was working abroad in a Gulf country, he had caused the filing of Annexure-A1 complaint through his authorised power of attorney holder. There was no averment in Annexure-A1 complaint that the said power of attorney holder was having direct knowledge about the said transaction between the complainant and the accused.