Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Hariharan Vs Philip and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2011)

Home
Kerala HC
2011
Hariharan Vs Philip and AnotherHariharan v. Philip and Another

Dismissed

Hariharan v. Philip and Another

Kerala HC24 May 2011Crl.L.P./322/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal leave petition was filed by a complainant seeking leave to appeal against an order of acquittal in a cheque bounce case.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal granted

What the court decided

AI extract

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT :

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933

Crl.L.P..No. 322 of 2011()

-------------------------ST.276/2009 of J.M.F.C. - III, KOLLAM

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

HARIHARAN, SAROJINI MANDIRAM, KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM.

BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.N.A.JOHN JACOB

SRI.P.SANJAY SHENOI

RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE:

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether leave should be granted to file an appeal against the order of acquittal in a cheque dishonour case.
2.
Whether the high court finds regarding the liability standing for the company rather than the complainant are perverse.
3.
Whether the failure to produce a conciliation document (Annexure-C) warrants interference with the acquittal.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
HARIHARAN
petitioner
SAROJINI MANDIRAM
respondent
PHILIP K.E.
respondent
STATE OF KERALA

Coram

AI extract

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Kerala HC
Decided on: 24 May 2011 · May
Registered: 15 Dec 2009
Case no.: Crl.L.P./322/2011

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from K.hema

Haridasan @ Ponnayyan Vs State of Kerala
23 May 2011
Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.(P) Ltd. Vs Mini Sankaran
23 May 2011
K.P.Santhosh Vs State of Kerala
7 Apr 2011
Thankachan Vs State of Kerala
24 May 2011

Cite this judgement

Hariharan v. Philip and Another, Crl.L.P./322/2011 (KL), decided on 24 May 2011.

The High Court of Kerala publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

K. HEMA

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Leave to file appeal granted

Issue for consideration

Whether leave should be granted to file an appeal against the order of acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. +2 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The high court refused to grant leave for filing an appeal against the order of acquittal. The court held that findings regarding the complainant acting as a representative for a company for business transactions, contrary to his personal claim, were not wrong or perverse and could not be substantiated by the petitioner.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

PHILIP K.E., PROPRIETOR, M/S.PHOEBE ENTERPRISES, MATHILIL P.O., KOLLAM.

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM

THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

K.HEMA, J.

----------------------------------------------- Crl.L.P. No.322 of 2011

Dated this 24^th May, 2011.

ORDER

This petition is filed for grant of leave to file appeal against an order of acquittal.

Petitioner is the complainant. The case of the complainant is that Ext.P1 cheque was issued for Rs. 2, 92,860/- in favour of the complainant towards his liability. It was dishonoured by bank for the reason 'exceeds arrangement' and inspite of notice the amount was not returned. Hence, the complaint.

To prove the prosecution case, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. Accused did not adduce any evidence. On consideration of the evidence and the rival contentions, the trial court held as follows:

“The complainant's case is that the accused owed Rs.2,92,860/- towards printing charges and commission on printing diaries for the accused.

The complainant had been cross-examined and he states that his transaction had been included in a companies return of income tax.

2

The entire business transaction details are with the company and infact he had filed this complaint for the company as its representative. In the complaint, it seems that the amounts had been owed to the complainant in the personal transactions. There is no mention about the involvement of the company in the matters.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

petitioner has evidence to prove that the accused owes money to the complainant and an opportunity may be given to him. I do not think that any opportunity is going to improve the case of the complainant, since from his own admission the liability stood for the company and not to complainant. The entire business dealings are with the company and the complainant admitted that he filed the complaint only as a representative of the company. The complainant has no case that the complaint was filed on behalf of the company or that the cheque was issued for discharge of the liability which arose towards the company. On the other hand, the complainant claims that he personally has to get more than Rs.90,000/- from accused though he candidly admitted that the liability stood for the company.

3

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is no mention about Annexure-C in the order, which is a document issued by the accused that the amount will be discharged within a particular date. However, he admitted that the said document was not produced before the trial court.

On going through the order under challenge, particularly, the findings of the trial court under point no.1, I do not find any reason to interfere with the above findings. Learned counsel was not able to substantiate that those findings are wrong or perverse. Hence, I am not inclined to grant leave.

Petition is dismissed.

Sd/- K. HEAMA, JUDGE.

Krs.

K. HEMA

CNR

KLHC010164522011

Topic

Cheque Dishonour

Bench

Disposal

DISMISSED

K.Narayanan Nair Vs Station House Officer

24 May 2011

Merchants Association Vs v.C.Dileep

24 May 2011