Dismissed

Prakash Chand v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2014Crl.MC/1284/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.M.C. No. 1284 of 2012 quashed a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging cheating and misappropriation. The petitioner contended lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process. The court found a prima facie case and dismissed the petition, holding no merit to the arguments for quashing.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the complaint was dismissed as it had no merit and prima facie case existed.

Prakash Chand Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1284 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN MP 6350/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO. 1438/2009 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED IN MP.6350/2009 IN FINAL REPORT NO.1973/11 BEFORE CJM, ERNAKULAM:

¶9

PRAKASH CHAND, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.PRATAP CHAND, PROPRIETOR, M/S.P.B.FABRIQUE INC, NO.5 & 6, BOMBAY ANAND BHAVAN, CHICKPET, BALGALORE-53.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.T.A.JOY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN MP.6350/2009 BEFORE CJM, ERNAKULAM:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. RAJU JOSE KALARIYIL, AGED 42 YEARS,

¶14

KADAYIL HOUSE, PADUVA ROAD, KADATHURUTHY VILLAGE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.R.K.APPARELS VENTURE PVT.LTD, REGISTERED AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DD VASTRA MAHAL, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM-11.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 1284 of 2012

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES

¶21

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE CREDIT INVOICE DATE 12.01.2009 ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF HE CREDIT INVOICE DATED 14.01.2009 ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE CREDIT INVOICE DATED 09.02.2009 ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE CREDIT INVOICE DATED 16.02.2009 ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE CREDIT INVOICE DATED 02.03.2009

¶22

ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 04.06.2009

¶23

ANNEXURE A7 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.14920/09 BEFORE ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE,BANGALORE.

¶24

ANNEXURE A8 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.14921/09

¶25

ANNEXURE A9 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.14922/09

¶26

ANNEXURE A10 COPY OF THE M.P.6350/2009 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,ERNAKULAM.

¶27

ANNEXURE A11 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO1973/11 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,ERNAKULAM.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.D. RAJAN, J.

Crl.M.C. No.1284 of 2012

¶35

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2014

¶36

ORDER

¶37

This is a petition filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-10 and 11 in Crime No.1438/2009 of Central Police Station, Kochi City, which was registered u/s.420, 406, 120B r/w.34 IPC. Annexure-10 complaint was filed by the 2^nd respondent before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, which was forwarded to the Central Police Station, Ernakulam for investigation u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner, who is the 3^rd accused in the above crime, contended that Annexure-10 complaint was filed only to counter blast the case filed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the place of occurrence in both cases is at Bangalore and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint. There is also a case pending as C.C.No.14921/2009 before Additional Chief Metropolitan, Bangalore. After filing the above case, Annexure-10 complaint

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.1284/12

¶39

¶40

was filed on experimental basis. Therefore, if trial is proceeded, it is only a mere abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, he prays to invoke the inherent jurisdiction.

¶41

The allegation of the 2^nd respondent in Annexure10 complaint was that he had business transaction with the accused in the above case. He is conducting a business firm namely, R.K. Apparels Ventures (P) Ltd, which is having its registered office at D.D. Vastra Mahal, Market Road, Ernakulam. He is doing business of providing fabric, accessories for bulk production of garments and also have a brand name 'RIIFT' by doing ready made garment business, which is well known in South India and all over India. He is the Managing Director of the firm. The company is having deal with the 1^st accused from 27.6.2007 and thereafter the 2^nd respondent executed a job work agreement with the 1^st accused on 2.2.2009. The 2^nd respondent used to purchase textile goods from the petitioner's firm M/s.P.B. Fabrique Inc. There was also an agreement to the effect that samples are to be submitted and got approved before taking up the bulk production, which was not done by the 1^st accused and

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.1284/12

¶43

¶44

thereby cheated him with the support of accused 2 to 4. The 1^st accused also did not deliver the goods as agreed and by misutilising the stock of the company, he made huge financial loss to the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st accused in support of accused 2 to 4 took money from the 2^nd respondent's firm and misappropriated it. Thereby, he sustained a loss nearly Rs.70 lakhs. In the circumstances, he filed Annexure-10 complaint against the petitioner and other accused. Hence, this petition. 3. The inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, this Court would not ordinarily conduct an enquiry with regard to the evidence produced before Court as to whether it is reliable or not or whether it is sufficient for a conviction. At this stage, this court is bound to consider the prima facie satisfaction of a case. Apex Court in State of Haryana v . Bhajanlal , [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] held as follows:

¶45

“(1) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused.(2)Where

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.1284/12

¶47

¶48

the allegations in the FIR of other materials do not constitute a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police under Section 156(1) of the code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2). (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected thereon do not disclose the commission of any offence. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence but constitute only non-cognizable offence to which no investigation is permitted by the police without the order of Magistrate under Section 155(2). (5) Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Statute concerned (under which the proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or in the statute concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accuse with a view to spite him due to private and personal vengeance.

¶49

I have considered the averments in this petition.

¶50

The facts and circumstances in this case show that there was

¶51

business transaction between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent and thereby committed huge financial loss to the 2^nd respondent. Even though the petitioner contended that cause of action of the case has arisen in Bangalore, nothing

¶52

Crl.M.C.No.1284/12

¶53

¶54

was brought before me to consider that there is no jurisdiction for entertaining Annexure-10 complaint. Moreover, there is no facts highlighted before me to invoke the inherent jurisdiction

¶55

in this matter. Hence, I am of the opinion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and other accused.

¶56

Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly.

¶57

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶58

acd

¶59

Crl.M.C.No.1284/12 6

Prakash Chand v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Chand 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen and Others Vs State of Kerala and Other

Shantha and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Rathi Alias Lathika Vs State of Kerala

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs Jacob a Johns

A.Soman Vs Narayanan Nair

Anoop Jose Vs State of Kerala