Disposed

Yousuf v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Feb 2012Crl.MC/143/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 CrPC petition, the Court refused to quash prosecution for cheque-related offences involving alleged breach of trust. It directed the petitioner to approach the trial court for discharge under Section 239 CrPC if no offence is made out before framing charges.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty granted to apply for discharge under Section 239 CrPC before trial.

Yousuf Vs the State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/3RD PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 143 of 2012 (c)

¶6

CC.108/2010 of J.M.F.C.-I,PATHANAMTHITTA. CRIME NO.341/2009 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

YOUSUF

¶9

S/O.SAINUDEEN, CHAKKALAPURAYIDAM, KATTOOR CHERUKOL VILLAGE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.M.M.ISMAIL, THENGUVILA VEEDU, THADIKADU ARACKAL VILLAGE

¶14

PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK. KOLLAM.691 007.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

amk

¶18

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.M.C.No. 143 OF 2012

¶21

-------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2012.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.108/2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Pathanamthitta for offences under Sections 403, 406 and 420 IPC seeks an order to quash further proceeding with a plea that the case arose out of the sale of a bus and the offences alleged are not made out. According to the petitioner, Annexure B would show that there was no inducement

¶24

for parting money and that there is no misappropriate or any breach of trust.

¶25

Having heard, I find that this is a matter to

¶26

be looked into by the trial court before framing charge. In the event no offence is made out, the petitioner can

¶27

Crl.M.C.No. 143 OF 2012 2

¶28

seek for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶29

In the result, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the event such a petition is filed, before the proceeding with the trial, the trial court shall dispose of the same on merits.

¶30

P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE

¶31

amk

Yousuf v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yousuf 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

Arun Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Kunjumol Vs State of Kerala

Vikas Viswan Vs Lakshmi

Janeesh Vs State of Kerala

Thresyamma Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Salesh Vs State of Kerala