Dismissed

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Jacob a Johns

Kerala HC10 Jun 2014Crl.MC/710/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR and complaint alleging cheating and forgery, the court examined the existence of a prima facie case. The court noted that investigation was completed and a charge sheet filed. It held that when a prima facie case is made out, inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of the FIR and complaint dismissed.

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs Jacob a Johns — 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

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 710 of 2010 ( )

¶6

CMP.NO. 52/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO. 176/2008 OF NOORANAD POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, PAULY SEBASTIAN CHUNAKKARA BRANCH, CHARUMMOODU.

¶9

2. CHACKO VARGHESE, AGED 57, S/O.CHACKO, BRANCH MANAGER, CHUNAKKARA BRANCH

¶10

PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER

¶11

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., PANDALAM BRANCH,

¶12

PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶15

1. JACOB A JOHNS, AGED 44, S/O.LATE P.V. JOHNS, A.P.HOUSE, VEDARAPLAVU PO., THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶16

2. STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO. 176/2008 OF NOORANAD POLICE STATION ALAPPUZHA) REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE, NOORANAD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.PAUL C THOMAS R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

...2/-

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 710 of 2010 ( )

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶24

ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 68/2008 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA.

¶25

ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND COUTNER CLAIM IN OS NO. 68/2008 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶26

ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE REPLICATION AND WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶27

ANNEXURE D COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA.

¶28

ANNEXURE E COPY OF THE FIR NO. 176/2008 ON THE FILES OF THE NOORANAD POLICE STATION.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.D. RAJAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.710 of 2010

¶34

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2014

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

This is a petition filed u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-D complaint and Annexure-E F.I.R. pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara, which was registered u/s. 192, 463 and 468 r/w. 34 IPC. The petitioners are accused in the above case and the first respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶37

The petitioners have contended that a civil suit is pending before the Sub Court, Mavelikkara as O.S. No.68/2008, in which, the first respondent filed Annexure-B written statement and counter claim raising false allegations. The matter is pending for consideration before the competent civil court. In the meantime, Annexure-D complaint was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara only to harass the petitioners and if trial is proceeded it will cause irreparable injury and gross hardship. Hence, the petitioners pray to

¶38

-2-

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.710 of 2010

¶40

invoke the inherent jurisdiction.

¶41

The first respondent's allegation in Annexure-D complaint was that in the year 1995 he obtained a loan for an amount of Rs.90,000/- under PMRY scheme from the Federal Bank Ltd., Chunakkara branch and for that he executed a promissory note on 02.09.1995. He repaid a sum of Rs.1,15,000/-. For the balance amount petitioners initiated R.R. proceedings and Revenue authorities issued notice to that effect. Subsequently, the issue was settled for Rs.50,004/- and he paid that amount on 15.03.2008. Again the first respondent received a notice in O.S. No.68/2008 for realising an additional amount of Rs.2,15,327/-. In the circumstance he filed Annexure-D complaint. The petitioners forged documents and preferred O.S. No.68/2008. Hence Annexure-D was forwarded to the Nooranad Police Station for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the investigation is progressing. Hence the petition.

¶42

4. Heard both sides.

¶43

-3-

¶44

Crl.M.C.No.710 of 2010

¶45

5. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

¶46

Cr.P.C. 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.

¶47

Both parties submitted that the case is under investigation by the S.I. of Police, Nooranadu and they are not aware about the present stage of investigation. In the circumstance, on 05.06.2014 this Court directed the investigating officer to furnish the details of the final report in crime No.176/2008 and as per the direction the Sub Inspector of Police, Nooranad Police Station submitted a report stating that after detailed investigation the case is charge sheeted. That be the position, prima facie case is

¶48

-4-

¶49

Crl.M.C.No.710 of 2010

¶50

made out against the petitioners. When prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, this Court cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction. Apex Court in Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 8 SCC 78] held that the inherent jurisdiction can be exercised sparingly and carefully and such exercise is justified by the test specifically mentioned in the section itself.

¶51

The parameters for invoking the inherent jurisdiction has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal , [1992 SCC (Crl) 426]. The Apex Court held as follows:

¶52

“(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 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

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.710 of 2010

¶54

-5-

¶55

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.”

¶56

Accepting the legal principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, I am of the view that when prima facie case is made out against the petitioners this is not a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction and it is dismissed accordingly.

¶57

Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE

¶58

//True copy//

¶59

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶60

shg/

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Jacob a Johns

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Jacob a Johns

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

Prakash Chand Vs State of Kerala

Praveen and Others Vs State of Kerala and Other

Shantha and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

A.Soman Vs Narayanan Nair

Anoop Jose Vs State of Kerala

P.D.Mohanan Vs the State of Kerala