Criminal proceedings for cheating are quashed due to lack of evidence of deceit despite a dishonored cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

ORDER

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2025 Petitioner is the 1^st accused in C.C No.899 of

2019 pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha. The case originated from Crime No.55 of 2018 registered at the Punnapra Police Station for offences punishable under Sections

420 and 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC .

2. The crime is registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent alleging that accused Nos.1 and 2 had cheated her by borrowing Rs.12 Lakhs and issuing a cheque which, on presentation, was returned with the endorsements ‘funds insufficient’ and ‘drawer’s signature incomplete’

3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, there can only be prosecution under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . It is submitted that, with respect to the Rs.12 Lakhs mentioned in the complaint, 2^nd respondent instituted a suit for recovery of money and obtained a decree in her favour. The 2^nd respondent’s attempt to get the decree executed did not succeed, since the petitioner is a lady without any means of livelihood. Faced with such a situation, 2^nd respondent filed the criminal complaint alleging cheating. Reliance is placed on the decision in Vijayakumar V. v. M.T.Vijayan and Another [ 2010 (4) KHC 582 ] to contend that, even if a cheque is returned with the endorsement ‘signature incomplete’, prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is maintainable.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that even if prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is possible, petitioner can be prosecuted for cheating, if there is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

5. The 2^nd respondent, though served with notice, has not entered appearance.

6. In Annexure-II complaint, except stating that the petitioner had issued a cheque with the assurance that it will be honoured on presentation, 2^nd respondent does not allege that the petitioner had deliberately put wrong signature on the cheque with the intention to deceive her. The fact that the 2^nd respondent had filed a suit for recovery of the same amount four years back, indicates that the 2^nd respondent had presented an old cheque in her possession after making entries in it. The inordinate delay between the decree and presentation of the cheque casts serious doubts on the bonafides of the 2^nd respondent.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-I FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.55 of 2018 registered at the Punnapra Police Station, pending as C.C No.899 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha, as against the petitioner, is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE SSK/19/03 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6277/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure i CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.55/2018 REGISTERED BY THE PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

Annexure II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AS CC

899 OF 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, AMBALAPUZHA.

Annexure III THE TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. NO.14/2015 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT ALAPPUZHA DATED 20/03/2015 Annexure IV THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN O.S.

NO.14/2015 OF THE SUB COURT ALAPPUZHA Annexure V HE TRUE COPY OF DCREE IN O.S. NO.14/2015 OF THE SUB COURT ALAPPUZHA RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE