This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for records in S.T.C.No.724 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaigundam and quash the same.
2.It is averred in the petition that on the complaint given by the petitioner, a case was registered in All Women Police Station, Tuticorin in crime No.17 of 2008 for the offences under
Sections 498(A),406 and
506(i) of I.P.C. on 26.01.2008 as against her husband, Darwin @ Darwin Gunalan and that her husband influenced the first respondent by forging the signature of the petitioner in his cheque which does not belong to her and preferred complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act, only to take revenge against the petitioner. The petitioner did not maintain any account in ICICI bank, Tuticorin and the cheque in question does not belong to the petitioner. After receipt of reply notice from the petitioner, the respondent mentioned in his complaint in S.T.C.No.724 of 2009 that the petitioner gave a cheque in the name of Darwin Enterprises. The petitioner has not committed any offence as mentioned in the complaint and therefore, the proceeding in S.T.C.No.724 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaigundam is to be quashed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner filed a complaint as against her husband and the case was registered by All Women Police Station and therefore, in order to take vengeance, he utilised his friend, the first respondent herein and gave a false complaint as if the petitioner committed offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. It is also contended that the petitioner had no account in ICICI bank, Tuticorin and therefore, the proceedings in S.T.C. is nothing but an abuse of process of Court.
4.No representation on the side of the respondents.
5.In the private complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate, it has been specifically stated that the cheque issued by the petitioner, when presented to the bank, was returned with an endorsement ?Account Closed'. The specific case of the petitioner is that though the first respondent/complainant stated in his notice that the cheque was issued by the petitioner, he mentioned in the complaint after receipt of the reply from the petitioner that the cheque was issued by the petitioner in the name of Darwin Enterprises. Therefore, there is some grey area as to the holding of the account by the petitioner either in her personal name or in the name of Darwin Enterprises. The question now put forth by the petitioner viz.,
(i)whether the petitioner issued the cheque (ii)whether the signature in the cheque is of the petitioner or the forged one and (iii) whether the petitioner's husband utilised the first respondent herein and initiated the complaint to take vengeance are to be decided only in the trial. Prima facie there is absolutely no material to infer that the cheque case has been instituted by the first respondent at the instance of the petitioner's husband to take vengeance. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6.Accordingly, , this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with. She is directed to appear before the trial Court as and when required by the Court.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Srivaigundam .