Partly allowed

Leena Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2010Crl.MC/3219/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashal of prosecution for cheating under IPC 406 regarding unpaid EPF contributions, the High Court refused interim quashal as the offence was still attracted on available materials, but allowed the petitioners to raise contentions before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Directing the lower court to dispose of the case expeditiously; interim quashal refused.

Leena Jose Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3219 of 2010()

¶6

------------------------------------CC.893/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, CHERTHALA

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. LEENA JOSE, W/O.JOSE RESIDING AT KIZHAKKETHOTTATHIL HOUSE PANAMPILLY NAGAR.

¶10

2. JOSE THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS RESIDING AT KIZHAKKETHOTTATHIL HOUSE PANAMPILLY NAGAR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB CHACKO

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682 031.

¶15

2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, O/O.THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ENFORCEMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶16

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AROOR POLICE STATION.

¶17

R1 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. R2 BY SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rs.

¶20

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶21

Crl.M.C No.3219 of 2010

¶22

Dated this the 11th October, 2010

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioners are the accused in C.C No.893/07 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Cherthala taken cognizance for the offence under Section 406 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C After framing charge, the case is posted for recording the evidence. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings contending that the arrears of contribution to the employees provident fund due from the employees was subsequently paid by the petitioner and C.C 124/06 to 129/06 filed under Section 14 AC(1) of EPF and M.P Act,1952 are pending before he Judicial First Magistrate Court-II Cherthala against the employer for non-remittance of the statutory contributions and in such circumstances it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶25

On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I do not find any justifiable reason for this Court to interfere at this stage as it cannot be said that on the materials furnished the offence is not attracted.

¶26

Crl.M.C No.3219 of 2010

¶27

¶28

Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions raised herein before Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtII, Cherthala. Learned Magistrate shall dispose the case expeditiously.

¶29

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶30

Leena Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leena Jose v. 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

Chincy Vs State of Kerala and Another

E.B.Prasanth and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Bin Peter Vs State of Kerala

Manoj @ Maneesh Vs the State of Kerala

V.P.Narayanankutty and Others Vs Jayesh Kumar and Another

Kamarudheen Vs State of Kerala