NEETHA KOTIAN Vs. K. SATHISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in the case S.T.No.527/2019 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta.

(2.) The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of the complaint (Annexure-A1) filed by the first respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the accused for quashing the proceedings against her in the case.

(3.) The material averments in Annexure-A1 complaint are the following: The complainant was constructing a building at Kalpetta. The accused and her husband are the proprietors of the shop "J.P.Lighting and Interiors" at Mangalore. During the first week of September, 2017 the complainant visited the shop of the accused for purchasing light and interior design materials for his newly constructed building in Kalpetta. The accused and her husband made the complainant to believe that the materials wanted by him would be obtained at a cheaper price in China. They made representation to the complainant that they had business dealings in China. The husband of the accused instructed the complainant to transfer an amount of Rs.9,73,170/- to the bank account maintained in the name of FRAMROZE towards travel and insurance for three persons to visit China. The complainant transferred Rs.2,79,600/- to Varsha Travels towards the flight tickets, food and accommodation for three persons and Rs.2,50,000/- to Sofa Classics, Mangalore towards the service charges of the husband of the accused. Thereafter, the complainant and his relatives visited China. Since the price of the articles was high and they were not up to his satisfaction, the complainant did not purchase the articles from China. Then the husband of the accused told the complainant that the articles required would be supplied from the shop at Mangalore. However, the articles were not supplied to the complainant. On repeated demands made by the complainant for return of the amount, the accused issued a cheque dated 30.12.2018 for Rs.9,73,170/- to the complainant on 24.12.2018 for returning the amount given for travel insurance. The accused executed the cheque, signed it and delivered it to the complainant at her shop at Mangalore. The complainant presented the cheque in the bank. It was dishonoured for the reason that payment was stopped by the drawer. The complainant issued notice to the accused demanding payment of the amount of the cheque. The accused received the notice. She sent a reply raising false contentions. She did not pay the amount of the cheque.