Dismissed

K.R.Binumon v. Baby Mathew

Kerala HC7 Apr 2009Crl.MC/1120/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court rejected the prayer to quash a private complaint and FIR alleging cheating, holding that the petitioner still had to face trial. However, the Court directed the Magistrate to consider the bail application on the date of the petitioner's surrender.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the complaint and FIR was rejected. The bail application will be considered by the Magistrate on the date of surrender.

K.R.Binumon Vs Baby Mathew — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1120 of 2009()

¶6

------------------------CC.730/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY

¶7

PETITIONER(S)ACCUSED:

¶8

------------------------------

¶9

K.R.BINUMON AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.RAVINDRAN NAIR V.G.KANIYAPARAMBIL (H) ALANAD P.O. KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.MINI.R.MENON

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

--------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. BABY MATHEW, AGED 49 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER, BLISS FARM INDUSTRIAL NAGAR, CHANGANASSERRY, VETTOOR HOUSE, ETTUMANNUR.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 1120 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2009.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure-B private complaint and Annexure C FIR. There is also a prayer to direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanacherry to consider the bail application. Annexure-C FIR would show that the accused with an intention to cheat and make money made the defacto complainant believe that he has an engineering company in Chennai and thereafter had cheated him to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Court had referred the matter, the police has registered an FIR and the investigation is going on. The learned counsel wants to rely upon Annexure D to come to the conclusion that there is no cheating. I had carefully gone through the same but it will not lead to the stage of conclusion. I do not want to elaborate further but I am convinced that materials here would not establish that no charge will lie against the accused. Therefore the prayer u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶20

Crl.M.C. 1120 OF 2009

¶21

So far as the 2^nd prayer is concerned, if the petitioner surrenders before the Court and moves an application for bail, I direct the concerned Magistrate to consider the bail application on the date of surrender itself and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In order to enable the Magistrate to do so surrender as well as filing of the bail application shall be done on the early hours of the working day.

¶22

The Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶24

ul/-

K.R.Binumon v. Baby Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Binumon v. Baby Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj.T.J Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Ajithkumar Vs State of Kerala and Others

Aboobacker Vs Pathumma

Ejas Mohamed Vs State of Kerala

Naniyil Krishnan Vs State of Kerala