ORDER : Petitioner seeks a relief under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. He seeks to quash the charge-sheet laid against him. 2. The case is pending as CC 80/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate-V, First Class, Thiruvananthapuram. There are three accused persons in that case. Petitioner is the second accused. The first accused is the person who at the relevant time was the manager of the South Indian Bank at its branch at Meluliyazthura. The third accused is the husband of the second respondent herein. The latter filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram complaining cheating. 3. The second respondent in her complaint alleged as follows: An account was opened in her name without her knowledge at the Meluliyazthura branch of the South Indian Bank. Her signature was forged by her husband to open the account. He forged her signature on a cheque too. That cheque was presented for collection by the petitioner as if to him was due Rs.5,00,000/- from the second respondent. A false complaint was filed by him against her alleging commission of an offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I Act' for short). Opening of the account, forging of the signature of the second respondent and filing of the complaint under Sec.138 of the N.I Act were the result of a conspiracy involving the accused persons. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the local station house officer under Sec.156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. An FIR was registered. Investigation was conducted. A report under Sec.173(2) Cr.P.C was filed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance. He made over the case to the court in which the case is now pending. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. There was no representation on the side of the second respondent when the matter was heard. 6. Annex-A is the charge-sheet. The petitioner seeks to quash it as such. That cannot be. Accused 1 and 3 are not before this Court with any grievance. Therefore what I propose to consider is only whether annex-A is liable to be quashed to the extent it relates to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner and the co-accused are shown in annex-A to be charged under Secs 120B, 167, 415 and 420 of the IPC read with IPC 34. Sec.415 is not a penal provision. It only carries the definition of cheating. 7. The petitioner and the co-accused are shown in annex-A to be charged under Secs 120B, 167, 415 and 420 of the IPC read with IPC 34. Sec.415 is not a penal provision. It only carries the definition of cheating. Sec.167 IPC can be charged only against a public servant for certain acts done by him as such public servant. The petitioner is not a public servant. He cannot therefore be charged under Sec.167 IPC. 8. What remains are Secs 120B and 420 IPC. The petitioner should establish that he has been charged under those provisions without any material or that the case itself is false as against him. 9. The allegation in annex-A is that the signature of the second respondent was forged to open an account and to create a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- to enable the petitioner to prosecute her under Sec.138 of the N.I Act. The 2nd respondent was prosecuted under Sec.138 of the N.I Act. The prosecution ended in her conviction and sentence. The trial court sentenced her to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. Her appeal was dismissed by the Court of Session. It does not appear that she preferred a revision against the judgment of the appellate court. In view of her conviction and sentence under Sec.138 of the N.I Act, it cannot be said that the cheque was forged. The prosecution against the petitioner therefore cannot go on. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mentioned certain dates which cannot be disputed. The cheque was dated 13.10.2005. The mandatory notice under Sec.138 of the N.I Act was issued by the petitioner. The second respondent received the said notice on 5.1.2006. She appeared and faced the trial. Pending trial only she filed her complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was filed on 19.5.2008. The second respondent had knowledge about the cheque at least on 5.1.2006 when she received the notice. But she filed her complaint only 2 = years later. The snail's pace of hers tells upon the genuineness of the allegations in her complaint. I do not consider the delay by itself fatal to the prosecution. But there are something more in this case. 11. Conspiracy is the definite allegation. One of the conspirators was the husband of the second respondent as per her own complaint. Her husband was the person who allegedly forged her signature. I do not consider the delay by itself fatal to the prosecution. But there are something more in this case. 11. Conspiracy is the definite allegation. One of the conspirators was the husband of the second respondent as per her own complaint. Her husband was the person who allegedly forged her signature. When the complaint was filed, the man and wife were not on good terms. The petitioner produced the statement of the second respondent recorded under Sec.161 of the Cr.P.C. In her statement she specifically alleged that everything was engineered by her husband and that he forged her signature on the cheque and for opening the account. It is also alleged that he did it in order to cheat her. The petitioner produced the statement of one Rajendran given under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. He is the witness for the prosecution to prove the conspiracy. His statement is that he hid himself to hear the conspiracy of the petitioner, the bank manager and the husband of the second respondent. The statement of the witness is that he heard the three conspirators conspiring to do what they did later. It seems that the second respondent and her husband have patched up their differences. The former filed an application before the learned Magistrate to direct further investigation. Annex-B is a copy of the said application with the supporting affidavit. The second respondent swore in her affidavit that her husband happened to forge her signature as he was threatened and manhandled by the petitioner, the bank manager and their henchmen. The second respondent does not want to prosecute her husband now. She wants to prosecute the other two accused only. This change in the attitude of the second respondent establishes beyond doubt the falsity of her complaint against the petitioner. If further investigation is directed and the husband of the second respondent is given a clean chit, I do not know what will happen to the statement of Rajendran that he heard the conspiracy involving the husband of the second respondent too. That is, however, not a subject-matter of this proceedings. But it points to the falsity of the allegations against the petitioner. Therefore interference by this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is warranted. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed to the following extent and to that extent only. Annex-A charge-sheet is quashed to the extent it relates to the petitioner. But it points to the falsity of the allegations against the petitioner. Therefore interference by this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is warranted. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed to the following extent and to that extent only. Annex-A charge-sheet is quashed to the extent it relates to the petitioner. Consequently, all proceedings against the petitioner in CC 80/2013 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate-V, First Class, Thiruvananthapuram shall stand quashed. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of prosecuting the other two accused persons in CC 80/2013.