Dismissed

P.Babu and Another v. Sadhasivan Pillai and Another

Kerala HC1 Feb 2013Crl.MC/1030/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal M.C. No.1030 of 2009, the High Court of Kerala considered an application to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC for cheque dishonour against two accused who denied administrative roles. Holding that allegations alone do not show absence of a case without evidence on their lack of involvement, the court declined to quash and closed the application.

What did the court decide?

No necessity at this stage to invoke power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings; application closed.

P.Babu and Another Vs Sadhasivan Pillai and Another — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/12TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1030 of 2009 (A)

¶6

[AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.1021/07 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY]

¶7

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. P.BABU, S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, THARAYIL, THOPPIL, KOMANA MURIYIL,

¶9

AMBALAPPUZHA.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

2. K.R.MOHANAN, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 56 YEARS, KUNNELVEETIL HOUSE, KOMANAMURIYIL, AMBALAPPUZHA POST, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH, SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1. SADASIVAN PILLAI, DHANYAVEETIL, MUZHANGODI MURIYIL, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶14

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

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SRI. K.SIJU, SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Prv.

¶18

CRL.M.C. NO.1030/2009-A:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE A-1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. ANNEXURE A-2: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF GENERAL BODY MEETING OF 1ST ACCUSED DTD. 17/07/06.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Prv.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶27

Criminal M.C. No.1030 of 2009

¶28

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2013

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This is an application filed by accused Nos.3 and

¶31

4 in C.C.No.1021 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First

¶32

Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, to quash the proceedings as against them under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is alleged in the petition that they are not office bearers of first accused Karayogam namely Akhila Kerala Dheevara Sabha (AKDS) and they are not dealing with the day to day administration of the Karayogam as well, and they have no connection with the transaction and issuance of the cheque alleged to have been given by accused Nos.7 and 8, who are the President and Secretary of the Karayogam. So according to learned counsel, no offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is attracted as against them. The learned counsel for the first respondent who is a complainant in the lower court, submitted that there are allegations in the

¶33

¶34

Criminal M.C. No.1030 / 2009

¶35

complaint regarding their involvement in the day to day administration of the first accused Karayogam and the cheque was issued with their knowledge. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to rely on certain documents produced by them, namely, the resolution passed by the Karayogam in their general body regarding the functions of present petitioners in the administration of the Karayogam, and that does not authorize them to do the day to day administration of the Karayogam. But it may be mentioned here that all these things are matter for evidence. On going through the allegations, it cannot be, at this stage, said that there was no allegation against accused numbers 3 and 4 who are petitioners in this proceedings, to come to a conclusion that there is no case made against them, to quash the proceedings against them. Without evidence is adduced on this aspect, it is not possible for this court at this stage come to a definite conclusion regarding the same. It may be mentioned here that the accused/the petitioners are at liberty to raise all

¶36

Criminal M.C. No.1030 / 2009

¶37

¶38

the contentions and defences available to them in the lower court to defend their case. So, there is no necessity, at this stage, to invoke the power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings and with the above observation, the Criminal M.C is closed. Communicate this order to the lower court, immediately.

Sd/-

K. RAMAKRISHNAN,

(Judge)

// True Copy//

P.A to Judge

P.Babu and Another v. Sadhasivan Pillai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Babu and Another v. Sadhasivan Pillai and Another

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

P.Karunakaran and 6 Others Vs Ytate of Kerala and Another

Annamma Chacko Vs State of Kerala and Another

Santhosh Varma Vs State of Kerala

Ajayan and Others Vs State of Kerala

Agreenco Fibre Foam Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs Mamaparambil Rubbers Products Pvt. Ltd.

H.Rajmohan Vs Bureau of Indian Standards