Accusations must establish a prima facie case; inconsistencies should be resolved during trial, not pre-trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 7126 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.1282 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMKULAM PETITIONER/S:

COSINE GROUP, REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER, JISHA U, AGED 48 YEARS MALIKKADAVU, NEAR MORIKKARA L.P SCHOOL, MORIKARA ROAD, MORIKARA, KOZHIKODE,, PIN - 673611 BY ADV SHRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT/S:

1 M/S THARAKAN TRADERS, REP. BY PROPRIETOR, JOSHY T ANTONY S/O ANTONY, THARAKAN HOUSE, P.O AMALA NAGAR,PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680555

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI, PIN - 682031 BY ADVS.

SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SMT.A.SIMI OTHER PRESENT:

PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTHTHIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No. 7126 OF 2025 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2026 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in ST No.1282/2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kunnamkulam, which has been filed by the 1st respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (‘N.I.Act’, for brevity).

2. The case of the 1^st respondent in Annexure-II complaint, in a nutshell is as follows:

3. The petitioner had purchased 63 tonnes of thermoplastic resin worth Rs.30,40,000/- from the 1^st respondent (complainant) for road works on credit basis. Later, he paid the price for one load weighing 21 tonnes and sought time to pay the balance amount. Later, on demand made by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner paid the balance amount of Rs.19/- lakh by issuing two cheques drawn on the State Bank of India for Rs.10/- lakh and Rs.9/- lakh, respectively. Though the 1^st respondent presented the cheques for collection through its bank, the same got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the petitioner’s account. The 1^st respondent issued a statutory demand notice to the petitioner to pay the amount. But, the petitioner failed to pay the said amount. Thus, the petitioner has committed the above offence.

4. The petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C. to quash Annexure-II complaint on the principle assertion that, in Annexure-IV proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that the total amount that was due to the 1^st respondent was Rs.30,47,940/- and not Rs.30,40,000/-. This is inconsistent with the specific allegation in Annexure-II complaint. Since an offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is a technical one, the said inconsistency cannot be permitted.

Therefore, Annexure-II complaint may be quashed.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contentions in the Crl.M.C. He submits that since there is a material inconsistency between the allegations in Annexure-I demand notice, Annexure-II complaint and Annexure-IV proof affidavit, even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it is not going to result in a conviction. Therefore, Annexure-II complaint may be quashed.

7. The learned Counsel for the 1^st respondent submits that, if the allegations in Annexure-II complaint are taken on their face value, the same would attract the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The dispute involved in Annexure-II complaint pertains to the dishonour of the cheques issued for a sum of Rs.19/- lakh. The assertion regarding the total