Dismissed

M.U.Philip v. Pathirath Vasu

Kerala HC3 Aug 2009Crl.MC/3013/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed petitions seeking quashing of complaints and FIR in criminal cases involving cheque dishonour, forgery, and atrocities. The Court held that police must investigate facts without quashing based on prima facie disclosure in complaints. The denial of quashing was influenced by the dismissal of an appeal to set aside an earlier conviction.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for quashing of complaints and FIR are dismissed with no order for costs.

M.U.Philip Vs Pathirath Vasu — Corruption | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 3013 of 2005()

¶5

----------------------------------CRIME NO.210/2005 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION ....................

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

¶7

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

¶8

M.U.UTHUP, S/O.PAILO ULAHANNAN, MANALEL, "USHUS", PALLAPRAM, P.O.PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. MR.K.P.MUJEEB

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

1. PATHIRATH VASU, S/O.KORAN, KADAVANAD AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KADAVANAD, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

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

¶14

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P. RAVEENDRA BABU. R1 BY ADV. MR.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, MR.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, MR.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC NO.780 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.3013 of 2005 & Crl.M.C.No.780 of 2006

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.3013/2005 is filed by the first

¶21

accused and Crl.M.C.No.780/2006 by the second accused in Crime No.210/2005 of Ponnani Police Station. First respondent is the complainant. First respondent filed Annexure-E complaint in Crl.M.C. No.3013/2005, which is Annexure-B in Crl.M.C.No. 780/2006, before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ponnani against petitioners and one P.V.John, who, in turn, had filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kottayam alleging that first respondent committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, based on which, Annexure-F FIR in Crl.M.C.No.3013/2005, which is Annexure-C FIR in Crl.M.C.No.780/2006, was registered

¶22

CRMC 3013/05&780/06 2

¶23

by Ponnani Police for offences under Sections 465, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code and 3(viii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. These petitions are filed to quash the complaints.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and first respondent were heard.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the private complaint was filed before

¶26

the Magistrate, based on which the FIR was registered, to escape from the civil suit instituted by the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.

¶27

3013/2005 for realisation of Rs.3,50,000/- due under a promissory note executed by the first respondent and also the criminal proceedings

¶28

initiated by the other two accused, for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act based on the two dishonoured cheques and

¶29

continuation of the investigation is only an abuse of process of the court. It was argued that though an offence under Section 3(viii) of SC & ST Act was

¶30

CRMC 3013/05&780/06 3

¶31

also alleged, on the face of the complaints, the allegations are not disclosed and the offence will not lie and in such circumstances, complaints are to be quashed.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.780/2006 argued that first respondent was already convicted in S.T.No.2433/2003 by the Magistrate and conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal and it establishes that there is no bona fides in the complaint at all and the complaint is only an abuse of process of the court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3013/2005 also argued that complaint was filed subsequent to Annexure-C written statement filed by the first respondent before Sub Court, Tirur in O.S.No.90/2002, instituted by the petitioner for realisation of the amount due under the promissory note and there is no bona fides in the complaint at all and therefore, the FIR and all other proceedings are to be quashed.

¶33

CRMC 3013/05&780/06

¶34

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the first

¶36

respondent pointed out that the complaint makes out the offences and in such circumstances, it cannot be quashed and the police has to investigate the case and the conviction of first respondent in S.T.No.2433/2003 is challenged in Crl.R.P.No. 277/2008 and the conviction will not stand in the light of the evidence and therefore, for the reason that first respondent was convicted in S.T.No. 2433/2003, the FIR cannot be quashed.

¶37

Along with Crl.M.Cs., Crl.R.P.No.277/2008

¶38

was also heard. As per separate order, revision was

¶39

allowed and conviction was set aside and first respondent was acquitted. In such circumstances, based on the conviction in S.T.No.2433/2003 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.263/2006, neither the complaints nor the FIR could be quashed.

¶40

On hearing the learned counsel appearing for

¶41

the petitioners and first respondent, I find no reason to quash the complaints or the FIR as sought for. It cannot be said that complaint does not

¶42

CRMC 3013/05&780/06 5

¶43

disclose ingredients of the offences. When complaint discloses ingredients of the offences, it is not for this Court to appreciate the evidence on the materials relied on by the petitioners and quash the complaints. It is for the police to investigate and find out the truth. Investigation is not to find out materials to convict the accused, but, to find out the real truth and if the accused committed the offence, to bring them to face trial before the court. In such circumstances, I find no reason to quash the complaints as sought for.

¶44

Petitions are dismissed.

¶45

3^rd August, 2009 tkv

¶46

(M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)

M.U.Philip v. Pathirath Vasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.U.Philip v. Pathirath Vasu

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

Udayakumar Y. Vs State of Kerala

Sajan K Varghese Vs C.L.Dileep

Velayudhan Vs Si of Police, Edavanna Police Station

C.Velayudhan Vs State of Kerala

Sunilkumar Vs Sindhurani

K.Sasi Vs State of Kerala