JASTI JAYALAXMI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to quash proceedings in C.C.No.167 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, at Hyderabad.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this criminal petition are as follows: The second respondent herein filed complaint before the Magistrate alleging that the cheque issued by A2 for Rs.1,70,266 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Mulukuduru Branch, Guntur District, was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and that the accused has committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the NI Act). The petitioner herein is shown as A3 and she was referred as associate person in the complaint. The main contention of the petitioner is that no case was made out against her under Section 138 of the NI Act and that she is no way connected with the purchase of goods by A1 and A2 and issue of cheque.

(3.) ON the other hand, advocate for second respondent submitted that para 5 of the complaint would clearly disclose the role of petitioner herein and there are specific allegations against her and therefore the objection of the advocate for petitioner is not tenable. He further submitted that as per the document filed along with the counter affidavit, the petitioner is shown under the caption name of the persons dealing and in another agreement she is shown in the column name of the partner relating to the first accused, therefore, she is liable for the cheque amount and these aspects have to be examined during trial. He submitted Honble Supreme Court in a recent decision in HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED v. JAYAM TEXTILES AND ANOTHER observed . procedural defects and irregularities, which are curable, should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a handmaiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use.