1. The two petitioners herein are accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No.606 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent Chit Company.

2. The dishonoured cheque dated 9.1.2013 is for Rs.56 lakhs drawn from a joint account of both the accused maintained in the State Bank of Travancore, Thottakkattukara Branch. According to the averments in the complaint, the said cheque has been issued by the accused to discharge the liability owed by them in a transaction with the second respondent Chit Company. Annexure-A4 is the copy of the abovesaid complaint dated 20.3.2013 which has led to the institution of C.C.No.606 of 2016. The prayer in this Crl. Miscellaneous Case is for quashing the abovesaid complaint.

3. Heard Sri.S.Easwaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused, Smt.N.Sudha, learned counsel appearing for R2/complainant and Sri. Jestin Mathew, learned prosecutor appearing for R1/State.

4. Among the various contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners, Sri. S. Easwaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has also raised a contention that the impugned Annexure-A4 complaint is said to be filed on 20.3.2013, whereas Annexure-A6 memo which is said to have been issued by the collection Bank of the complainant (Federal Bank Ltd., Thrissur Main Branch) is on 1.12.2013 wherein the date of the presentation of the dishonoured cheque has been shown as 1.11.2013 at 12 A.M. and that the reason for dishonour shown therein as “no such account”. On this basis, it is contended by the petitioners that if Annexure-A6 produced by none other than the complainant is true, then the said document dated 1.12.2013 would not have been produced along with Annexure-A4 complaint on 20.3.2013. Further it is argued that going by the admitted case of the complainant, the dishonoured cheque is dated 9.1.2013, whereas even the date of presentation of the said cheque before the collection Bank is on 1.11.2013 and therefore, the date of presentation of the cheque before the drawee Bank would have been only subsequently thereafter and so obviously, the cheque has been presented much after the expiry of its three months validity period as prescribed by the amended RBI notification dated 4.11.2011 made effective from 1.4.2012. On this basis it is argued by Sri. S. Easwaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the impugned action of the Magistrate in having taken cognizance in such a complaint where the cheque itself has been presented after its expiry period is Illegal and ultravires. Alternatively, it is pleaded that if the date shown in Annexure-A6 produced by the complainant is mistaken, then also the action of the Magistrate in taking cognizance on the basis of such a crucial document is per se illegal and ultravires as only a proper dishonour memo will get the benefit of presumption envisaged under Section 146 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly, it is argued that even going by this alternative plea, the very basis on which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in this case is without any proper and adequate materials and so, the complaint is liable to be quashed.

5. After considering the said contention, this Court had passed an order dated 12.7.2017 in this petition directing the Registry to forward a copy of that order to the learned Magistrate who was directed to submit a report in the matter and it was also ordered that the trial court should make available photocopies of the entire case papers in relation to the present complaint in C.C.No.606 of 2016.

6. Now the learned Magistrate has made available a report dated 20.7.2017 addressed to the Registry of this Court. The said report discloses that originally the complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thrissur, on 20.3.2013 as Crl. Miscellaneous Petition No.2525 of 2013. Ther