SMT.V.N.SUMATHI KANDAMANGALATH HOUSE v. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER COMMERICIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT

R.BASANT, J.----------------------W.P.C.No.7754 of 2008----------------------------------------Dated this the 18th day of March 2008J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated against her by the third respondent. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. The case has been registered. The petitioner has not so far entered appearance before the learned Magistratethough the case is seen registered as early as in 2004, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner wants this court to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the prosecution launched against her by the third respondent by Ext.P5complaint.

What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt or liability. It was handed over as a security when a loan of Rs.15,000/- was availed from the complainant. It was handed over as an unfilled blank signed cheque. The said blank signed cheque is being W.P.C.No.7754/082misutilised by the complainant to launch this prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the prosecution may be quashed.

I find absolutely no merit in the request to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226. Itwill be premature for this court to embark on any rowing enquiry without any adequate materials to decide whether the cheque was handed over as security or was issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt or liability. I shall carefully avoid amore detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the contentions, lest it might prejudice the interests of either of the two parties at later stages. Suffice it to say that I am convinced that the petitioner cannot succeed in the request for quashing the proceedings on the basis of the scanty materials which isplaced before this court. I need only mention that it is for the petitioner to enter appearance before the court and ensure that all the defences she wants to raise are raised before the learnedMagistrate and appropriate orders solicited/secured. W.P.C.No.7754/0835.The petitioner has another grievance raised that respondents 1 and 2 have not initiated any prosecution against the third respondent for the indiscretions committed by him. Ext.P1 application was filed before the second respondent. Itevoked Ext.P11 reply. Later Ext.P17 reply was also received. Inthat, it is made very clear that on the available materials, no prosecution under the Money Lender's Act can be initiated by respondents 1 and 2 against the third respondent.

I find absolutely no merit in the prayer that respondents 1 and 2 must be directed to initiate proceedings under the Money Lender's Act in the light of the clear reasons given in Ext.P17.

It follows that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I do so. (R.BASANT, JUDGE)jsr// True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.7754/084 W.P.C.No.7754/085 R.BASANT, J.CRL.M.CNo.ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007