Quashed

M/S.Muthoot Fincorp.Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Apr 2009Crl.MC/177/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of a Final Report alleging loan fraud. The court quashed the Crl.M.C., directed the petitioner to approach the nearest Magistrate for permission to reinvestigate, and directed the accused to appear via counsel during pendency.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 177 of 2009 was disposed of. Petitioner directed to move an application before the concerned Magistrate for further investigation. Personal appearance of accused dispensed with; represent

M/S.Muthoot Fincorp.Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.M.C.No. 177 of 2009() -----------------------(CRIME NO. 58/07 KALPETTA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶4

M/S.MUTHOOT FINCORP LTD. MULLASSERY TOWERS ,PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANATHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.THOMAS MUTHOOT.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.STEPHEN

¶6

RESPONDENT(S):

¶7

¶8

THE STATE OF KERALA RETRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶9

SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPETTA POLICE STATION, WAYANADU.

¶10

NAMITHA SUSAN K.J. W/O.SHAJAN C.V. AGED 26 YEARS, CHALISSERY HOUSE, EMILY KALPETTA WAYANADU DISTRICT.

¶11

PREETHI M.D/O.ANANTHAN NAMBIAR AGED 25 YEARS, PATTAVAYAL HOUSE, PADINJARATHARA P.O. POZHUTHANA WAYANADU DISTRICT.

¶12

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

M.N. KRISHNAN, J

¶15

CRL.M.C.No. 177 OF 2009

¶16

Dated this the 2^nd day of April, 2009

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure A9 Final Report and then pass an order directing the police department of the State to conduct fresh investigation so as to apprehend the real culprit.

¶19

The brief facts of the case would reveal that the allegations is started with filing of a complaint that one Navas had pledged two bangles and had taken a gold loan of Rs. 7,200/- which on later verification was found to be spurious. So the Manager of the institution lodged a complaint to the Circle Inspector of Police. The investigating agency questioned the Manager and the officials concerned and it was found out that so many procedural formalities are to be complied before giving a gold loan. It has come out that an identity card has to be produced and a copy of it has to be kept in the file. There must be an appraisal of the gold and then only the loan can be sanctioned. But the police found that no such procedure has been followed. But the police after this, came to the conclusion

¶20

Crl.M.C. 177/2009

¶21

-2-

¶22

that the person who were in-charge of the office at that time had done this and therefore has filed a Final Report against those people. The Financial Corporation has come forward with this Crl.M.C to quash the same. The subject matter of the complaint was with respect to one Navas and ultimately two other person have landed in the form of the accused. Dereliction of duty of a person is something different from the fraudulent act of cheating. Unless there are prima facie materials to link then one has to to be very careful. I do not want to further elaborate for the reason that the matter requires further investigation with the permission of the court.

¶23

Therefore I direct the present petitioner to move an application before the concerned Magistrate for further investigation which can be considered by the court in detail and necessary orders be passed. Till that time the personal appearance of the accused in this case be dispensed with and they be permitted to be represented by the counsel.

¶24

The Crl.M.C is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶26

vkm

M/S.Muthoot Fincorp.Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Muthoot Fincorp.Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

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

Rose Michael Vs Wilson Anto and Another

Peter Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hakkim Vs the State of Kerala

C.Ravi Vs State of Kerala and Others

Fr.Kuriakose Mangalath Vs State of Kerala

E.P.Marakar Vs State of Kerala