AKBAR SHA v. KONOOCOPPARAMBAN TRADERS
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
With that liberty, petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Crl.MC.No. 3060 of 2009 ---------------------------------- [ CC.NO.395/2006 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDI] .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- AKBAR SHA, AGED 36, S/O.SHAMSUDDEEN, FIRENDS MARKETING COMPANY, O/O.INDIA GAS STADIUM COMPLEX, NEW CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.K.C.SUDHEER, MR.MANJU ANTONEY. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KONOOCOPPARAMBAN TRADERS, REP. BY PROPRIETOR, ITTOOP, 48 YRS,S/O.KOONCOPARAMBAN OUSEPH,CHALAKUDY DESOM, CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DIVAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,S/O.MULLAPARAMBIL VELAYUDHAN,NALUKETTU P.O.,PALAPILLY DESOM, KORETTI KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM,THRISSUR.
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3060 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.395/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakudy, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on Annexure- A1 complaint filed by the first respondent. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint contending that proprietary concern has no legal entity and therefore, proprietary concern cannot be a complainant.
Operative part
2. Annexure-A1 complaint shows that complainant is Divakaran, S/o Velayudhan, who represented the proprietary concern as Power of Attorney Holder of Ittoop, the Proprietor. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint is not maintainable. In any case, I find it not a justifiable ground to quash the complaint. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions before the Magistrate. With that liberty, petition is dismissed. 22nd September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With that liberty, petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 22 Sep 2009. The bench was M SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.