Dismissed

Reghu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2014Crl.MC/598/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners moved the High Court of Kerala to quash criminal proceedings for forgery and cheating. The court held that proceedings could not be abruptly terminated absent a forensic report on the disputed promissory note, which was central to both criminal and civil suits. The petition was disposed of by directing the investigating officer to complete the investigation and file a final report expe

What did the court decide?

Direction to the investigating officer to file a final report in Crime No. 1005/2010 within two months to expedite investigation on the disputed promissory note.

Reghu Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 598 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN O.S.NO. 173/2007 of SUB COURT,ATTINGAL

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 379/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL DATED

¶8

14-08-2008

¶9

CRIME NO. 1005/2010 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶10

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 :

¶11

REGHU, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.MADHAVAN, ARYA BHAVAN, PAYATTINGUKUZHI PORUNTHAMON, PULIMATHU VILLAGE

¶12

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

AJITHA, AGED 45 YEARS W/O.REGHU, -DO- -DO-.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :

¶16

STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.1005/2010) REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

RAJAVALLI, AGED 49,

¶20

D/O.SARADHA, ELIPPIKAZHIKATHU VEETTIL NANDAIVANAM DESOM, NEDUMPARAMBU, NAGAROOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695012.

¶21

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 598 of 2012 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶26

ANNEXURE-A1	TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT BEING CMP NO.7093/2010 DT.6.10.2010 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFMC-I, ATTINGAL.
ANNEXURE-A2	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1005/2010 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE-A3	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.173/2007 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE-A4	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO.173/2007 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE-A5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.14.8.2008 IN O.S.NO.379/2004 OF HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J

Crl.M.C. No. 598 of 2012

¶33

---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2014

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 1005/2010 of Kilimanoor Police Station registered for offences punishable under sections 420, 464, 467 and r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, a criminal complaint was filed by the second respondent, the defacto complainant alleging that the petitioners and the co-accused have forged a document. At the same time, the second respondent herein has instituted O.S.No. 173/2007 before the Sub Court, Attingal for realising an amount of Rs. 1,77,800/- together with 9% interest from the defendant who is the second respondent herein. Evidently, the bone of contention in both the said proceedings is a promissory note. The learned Government Pleader submitted that as part of the investigation the promissory note in dispute was forwarded for examination to the forensic laboratory and the report is yet to be received. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, in fact, after conducting the examination of the documents a report

¶36

Crl.M.C.NO. 598 of 2012

¶37

¶38

was already been forwarded to the investigating officer. Since, the promissory note in question is the subject matter in both the proceedings and the issues involved cannot be decided without conducting a proper enquiry into it I do not think that this Court will be justified in terminating the criminal proceedings abruptly by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners I am of the view that if the investigating officer is already received the report after the examination of the document in question it will only be appropriate for the investigating officer to expedite the investigation and on its completion to file the final report in tune with the provisions under section 173 Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 1005/2010 of Kilimanoor Police Station before the competent court. Once a final report is filed it will only be appropriate for the petitioners to take up the plea of discharge at the appropriate stage if they are so advised or such other action permissible under law. In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the investigating officer in Crime No.1005/2010 to file a final report thereon expeditiously and at any rate, within a period of two months and needless to say that upon the filing of final report it will be open to the petitioners to take up the plea of

¶39

Crl.M.C.NO. 598 of 2012

¶40

¶41

discharge if it is a charge sheet, in case they are so advised, at the appropriate stage. With the above observation this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.

¶44

dlk

Reghu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reghu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Subair.P Vs Mr.Balaraj B.K

Binoy Viswam Vs Xavi Mano Mathew

Malu Vs Kerala State

K.M.Joseph Vs Kerala State

Anitha Baby Vs Kunjappan Painkily

Santha Viswanathan` Vs S.Suhas