Quashed

K.K.Sudheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jan 2010Crl.MC/3997/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against an accused who had retired from a partnership firm charged with cheating subscribers in a chitty scheme, finding that prosecuting him post-retirement constituted an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case No. 3648/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Irinjalakuda is quashed as against the petitioner, accused No. 4.

K.K.Sudheer Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3997 of 2009(D)

¶6

-------------------------------------CC.NO.3648/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

¶8

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

¶9

K.K.SUDHEER, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. K.A.KUMARAN, KOOTTAPURAKKAL HOUSE, CHERAI.P.O., PIN-683 514.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶14

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE POLICE STATION, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR.

¶15

3. MR. RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. KUNJITTY, ALOTH HOUSE, PNJAPPILLY DESOM, KALLETTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

prv.

¶19

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶20

===========================

¶21

CRL.M.C.No.3997 OF 2009

¶22

===========================

¶23

Dated this the 20^th day of January,2010

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioner is accused No.4 in C.C.3648/2009

¶26

on the file of Judicial First Class

¶27

Magistrate's Court, Irinjalakuda taken

¶28

cognizance for the offence under section 420 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code against four accused on Annexure F final report. Case was registered under Annexure E

¶29

F.I.R on recording the First Information

¶30

Statement of Ramakrishnan, son of Kunjutti on 18.9.2008 against accused 1 to 3 on the allegation that they had collected

¶31

subscriptions after enrolling several persons

¶32

in a Chitty run by the firm in the name Swasraya Chits Company and before the expiry of the period, they closed the office and cheated the subscribers. This petition is filed under

¶33

Crl.M.C.3997/2009 2

¶34

section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against the petitioner contending that, though by Annexure A partnership deed dated 18.6.2007 petitioner was the first partner of the partnership firm by name M/s.Swasraya Chits, by Annexure B deed of reconstitution of the

¶35

partnership firm on 17.7.2007, petitioner retired from the firm and only the other accused are the partners and notice of change of constitution of the firm was intimated to the Registrar of firms on 17.7.2007 itself and by Annexure C and D paper publications it was intimated to the general public also and in such circumstances petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the failure of the firm to pay the amount due under chitty to its subscribers and continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is only an abuse of process of the court.

¶36

Though notice was served on the third respondent,the de facto complainant, he did not

Crl.M.C.3997/2009

appear.

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶41

Annexure F final report shows that

¶42

petitioner was implicated in the case as an accused on the ground that he is also one among the partners of the firm and the firm had conducted chitty and collected amount by way of subscriptions to the chitty and before paying amount, closed the chitty and thereby cheated the subscribers. Though the charge shows that the amount was collected from 7.2.2007 onwards till 8.7.2008, the very case is that the amount was collected by the firm and not by the original proprietory concern. Annexure A shows that the partnership firm was constituted only on 18.6.2007. When there is no allegation that petitioner made any inducement or

¶43

representation to any subscriber to join the chitty transaction prior to the constitution of the firm

¶44

Crl.M.C.3997/2009 4

¶45

by Annexure A, on 18.6.2007, petitioner cannot be

¶46

prosecuted for any act done prior to the

¶47

constitution of the firm. In fact there is no such case for the prosecution also. When the dishonest intention is alleged as against the petitioner,

¶48

only after the constitution of the firm and Annexure B deed of retirement establishes that within one month of the constitution of the firm, the firm was reconstituted whereunder petitioner

¶49

ceased to be a partner, continuation of the prosecution as against the petitioner is only an abuse of process of the court.

¶50

Petition is allowed. C.C.3648/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court as against the petitioner accused No.4 is quashed.

¶51

tpl/-

¶52

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶53

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶54

W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶55

--------------------JUDGMENT

¶56

SEPTEMBER,2006

K.K.Sudheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Sudheer 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

Omanakuttan Vs State of Kerala

Biji Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Akhilesan Vs the Station House Officer

T.M.Abdul Salam Vs Muhammed Abdul Noor

Reeny Rajan Babu and Another Vs State of Kerala