Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BINDHU PRASAD, C/O.PRASAD NAVEEN versus SEBIA K.K. NOUFA MANZIL, CHENGALAM SOUTH

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BINDHU PRASAD, C/O.PRASAD NAVEEN v. SEBIA K.K. NOUFA MANZIL, CHENGALAM SOUTH - Crl MC No. 242 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 3692 (20 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 242 of 2007()

1. BINDHU PRASAD, C/O.PRASAD NAVEEN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SEBIA K.K. NOUFA MANZIL, CHENGALAM SOUTH
... Respondent

2. MONARCH CONCEPTS AND MARKETING PVT.LTD.,

3. JOMY JOSEPH, FLAT NO. III-D, PRESIDENCY

4. PRASAD NAVEEN, SUDARSAN,

5. EAPPEN NINAN, CHAMMINIYODATHU HOUSE,

6. SILOO EAPEN, CHAMMINIYODATHU HOUSE,

7. LEA JOSEPH, C/O.JOMY JOSEPH,

8. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

For Petitioner :SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR (KALLESSERIL)

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :20/02/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 242 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 20th day of February, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner is the 7th accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The first respondent herein is the complainant. The first accused is a Private Limited Company. Accused 2 to 6 are the Directors of the company. The petitioner submits that except that she happens to be wife of the third accused, one Prasad Naveen, she has absolutely no connection with the company. In the notice of demand that was issued it has not even been alleged that the petitioner is a Director of the company, though the notice has been addressed to the petitioner also. In the complaint that is filed, there is an assertion that the petitioner is a Director and that she is also in charge of and manages the affairs of the first accused company.

2. The petitioner contends that she has absolutely nothing to do with the company. She is not one of its Directors. She is not the drawer of the cheque. She has not signed the cheque on behalf of the drawer, i.e. the first accused. She relies on a document produced as Crl.M.C.No. 242 of 2007 2 Annex.C in support of her contention that she is not a Director of the first accused company.

3. The assertion that the petitioner is not a Director of the company and that she is in no way connected with the company remains uncontroverted. In the notice of demand there is no allegation, I repeat, that the petitioner is a Director of the company. In the complaint there is the following sweeping statements appearing in paragraph 1:

"The first accused is a company and the accused 2 to 7 are its Directors. The accused 2 to 7 are in charge and managing the affairs of the 1st accused company." There is absolutely nothing produced in support of this assertion. Annex.C document reveals that the petitioner is not a Director of the company. The complainant has not entered appearance before this Court to deny the specific assertion of fact that the petitioner/A7 has nothing to do with the company.

4. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this is a fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can and ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioner. Under Section 141 of the Act, it must be shown that the petitioner is a Director and is in charge and responsible for the company for the conduct of its affairs. I am of the opinion that in the total Crl.M.C.No. 242 of 2007 3 absence of a semblance of materials and in the light of the failure of the complainant to appear before this Court and controvert the specific assertions that this petition can be allowed and the petitioner can be saved of the undeserved trauma of this prosecution.

5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed. C.C.No. 536 of 2004 pending before the J.F.C.M -III, Kottayam in so far as it relates to the petitioner/A7 is hereby quashed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.