Disposed

Omanamma v. the S.P. of Police

Kerala HC18 Jun 2014Crl.MC/2231/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court criminal miscellaneous case seeking direction for further investigation under Section 482 CrPC regarding alleged bank fraud. Court held unnecessary to order further investigation, allowing petitioner to adduce evidence via Public Prosecutor before trial court.

What did the court decide?

No further investigation ordered; petitioner allowed to adduce evidence through Public Prosecutor before the trial court.

Omanamma Vs the S.P. of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/28TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2231 of 2014 ()

¶6

--------------------------Crl.MC 2192/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN CC 337/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO. 21/2008 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/R.C. OWNER :

¶8

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

¶9

OMANAMMA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. LATE SIVARAMAN NAIR, MUTTANIL HOUSE, CHERUKOLE.P.O., CHERUKOL MURI & VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.S.JUSTUS

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶14

2. THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶15

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHENCHERRY.

¶16

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 2231 of 2014 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

ANX.1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK SHOWING THE TRANSACTIONS/ENTRIES IN LOAN NO. HL-270/02. ANX. 2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 7502/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.MC. NO. 1 PATHANAMTHITTA. ANX.3. THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AS CRIME NO. 21/2008 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION. ANX.4. THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.21/2008 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION. ANX.5. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL HOUSING BANK UNDER RFTI ENQUIRY. ANX.6. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT ISSUED. ANX.7. THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CR.M.C. 2192 OF 2013 DATED 19-7-2013. ANX.8. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.P. 8231/2013 IN C.C. NO. 337/2008 ON THE FILE OF J.F.C.M-1 PATHANAMTHITTA. ANX.9. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN CR. M.C 3691/2011 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Crl. M.C. No.2231 of 2014

¶29

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2014

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, who is the defacto-complainant in Crime No.21/2008 of Aranmula police station now pending as C.C. 337/2008 on the file of the Judicial Fist Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, seeking further investigation in the matter under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code').

¶32

It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the defacto-complainant in Crime No. 21/2008 of Ararnmula police station, now pending as C.C.337/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468 and read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner was that, on 15.12.2002, she applied for a loan for an amount of

¶33

¶34

Crl. M.C.2231 of 2014

¶35

₹ 25,000/- by pledging her landed property as loan No.HL270/02. Petitioner remitted an amount of 3,000/- towards₹ process fees and pass book was also issued showing an amount of 25,000/-. The loan amount was also sanctioned₹ for 25,000/- and EMI was fixed as 447/- per month₹ ₹ payable in 120 months. She remitted seven installments and she committed the default from 8^th installment onwards. When the petitioner’s son went to the bank to remit the defaulted installments, it was informed to him that there was a falsification of accounts of the petitioner by the branch manager and instead of 25,000/- loan availed₹ was shown as 2,00,000/- and the manager forged all the₹ loan transactions making the loan amount as 2,00,000/-₹ and after paying ₹ 25,000/- to the petitioner, misappropriated the balance amount. The loan amounts were disbursed by cheque but only 22,000/- was paid to the₹ petitioner. After that first accused Smt. Suvarna Vijayan,

¶36

¶37

Crl. M.C.2231 of 2014

¶38

the Manager remitted an amount of ₹10,000/- in the account of the petitioner on 15.07.2005 in order to suppress the transaction. So the petitioner filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta and it was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Crime No.21/2008 registered by Aranmula Police. The investigation was not properly conducted, material documents from the bank were not seized and the petitioner's passbook was also not seized by the investigating officer and without conducting proper investigation, the investigating officer filed final report, which was taken on file as C.C.337/2008. The petitioner filed Crl.M.C. 2192/2013 before this court, seeking further investigation and that petition was disposed of by this court, directing the petitioner to approach the trial court itself for this purpose. Accordingly, an application was filed before the trial court, but the trial

¶39

Crl. M.C.2231 of 2014

¶40

¶41

court also dismissed the application. So the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the

¶42

following relief:

¶43

Set aside the order in Crl.M.P.8231/2013 in C.C.No.337/2008 on the file of the JFMC-I, Pathanamthitta.

¶44

Direct the respondents to conduct further investigation on crime No.21/2008 of Aranmula police station now pending as C.C.No.337/2008 on the file of the JFMC-I, Pathanamthitta.

¶45

3. Respondent filed counter contending as

¶46

follows:

¶47

“CMP before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta stating that the first accused has cheated 1,75,000/- Rupees by fraudulently sanction a loan from Kerala Housing Finance Ltd., Kozhenchery branch in the name of the complainant. Subsequently Cr.21/2008 U/s. 420, 465, 468 IPC was registered in Aranmula Police Station.

¶48

The case was investigated by Sri.Nanda kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, Aranmula. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer had seized the document showing the application form and amount applied etc. Later the part of the second accused was incorporated in the case, He fraudulently acquired the title deed of 3 ½ cent of land from his grand mother and produced before the bank for acquiring the loan.

¶49

The complainant had applied for a loan from Kerala Housing Finance Ltd. only for 25,000/- and produced a title deed of 7 cents as collateral security. The first accused by the Manager of the Institution manipulated the document and sanctioned 2,00,000/- from the

¶50

Crl. M.C.2231 of 2014

¶51

¶52

institution. But disbursed only 25,000/- to the complainant and given a pass book showing only the same amount. The balance amount of Rupees 1,75,000/was cheated by the accused from the complainant.

¶53

The investigation of the case completed by the Investigating Officer on 23.06.2008 and laid charge against the first and second accused before the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. The case was in trial as CC 337/08 of the Hon'ble Court.

¶54

The accused were not arrested since they were absconded.

¶55

The above facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief”.

¶56

I have called for a report from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, regarding the present stage of the case and it is seen from the proceedings paper of the court below that, the petitioner filed an application for re-investigation as Crl.M.P.8231/2013 and that was dismissed on 22.01.2013. It is also seen from the proceedings paper that though the present petitioner did not appear for giving evidence as well. On going through the allegations, this court feels that, there is no necessity to order further investigation by this court at this stage and the petitioner can adduce evidence

¶57

¶58

Crl. M.C.2231 of 2014

¶59

before the court below itself through the learned Public Prosecutor, so that the court below can consider those documents also and if the learned Public Prosecutor wants the document to be sent for expert opinion for getting the documents examined, after summoning those documents and that course is also open to the petitioner.

¶60

So under the circumstances, this court feels that, there is no necessity to pass any orders in this application, ordering further investigation, considering the fact that, the case is of the year 2008 and evidence of the case has already been started and it appears from the proceedings paper that, the petitioner is not co-operating with the trial of the case, however leaving open the right of the petitioner, to adduce proper evidence, before the court below, through the learned Public Prosecutor, to vindicate her grievance and directing the lower court to consider those applications, if any field by the Public Prosecutor on

¶61

¶62

Crl. M.C.2231 of 2014

¶63

behalf of the defacto-complainant and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶64

With the above observation, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately.

¶65

Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge

¶66

// True Copy //

¶67

P.A. to Judge

¶68

Omanamma v. the S.P. of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omanamma v. the S.P. of Police

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

Rasheed Vs Station House Officer

Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Vasudevan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala

Nidhin Vs Jose

Jaffer Khan Vs State of Kerala