Allowed

Sreekumar R.Menon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jan 2016Crl.MC/116/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings. The court found the prosecution evidence contradictory and false, holding the criminal proceedings based on the final report liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of all further proceedings in C.C.No.998/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Perambra.

Sreekumar R.Menon Vs State of Kerala — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/9TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 116 of 2015 ()

¶6

CC. NO.998/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PERAMBRA.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-:

¶8

SREEKUMAR RAJAN MENON, VNRA-44, VIVEKANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN, SRI.K.NIRMALAN.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:-:

¶11

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

¶12

2. KUNJIKRISHNAN MARAR, ULIKUNNUMMEL, PANANGAD, THAMARASSERY AMSOM DESOM, CALICUT.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 116 of 2015

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶19

ANNEXURE A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.365/2014 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2. TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION IN O.S.NO.129/2005 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOYILANDI. ANNEXURE A3. TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.129/2005 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOYILANDI. ANNEXURE A4. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.998/2014 OF JFCM-II, PERAMBRA.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶25

================ Crl.M.C. No. 116 of 2015 ======================= Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2016

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.998/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Perambra, for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. The crime was registered on 29.05.2014 as Crime No.365/2014 of the Balussery Police Station, Kozhikode District. The Police was very vigilant in carrying out the investigation expeditiously and they filed final report on 07.07.2014.

¶29

Crl.M.C. No. 116 of 2015

¶30

-: 2 :-

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that the 2^nd respondent herein, who is the de facto complainant had borrowed an amount of 8 lakhs from the petitioner on₹ 25.01.2005 and at that time, he had obtained the sale deed in respect of the property of the 2^nd respondent as security by agreeing to re-convey it on the payment of the amount borrowed with interest. According to the 2^nd respondent, an amount of 10 lakhs was paid and₹ even then, the petitioner has not cared to re-convey the property.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the 2^nd respondent was not the title holder of the property; whereas the property belongs to the father of the 2^nd respondent. At the time when the sale deed was executed, the 2^nd respondent was the power of attorney holder of his father and it was on that basis, the sale deed was executed.

¶33

Thereafter, the father of the 2^nd respondent had filed O.S.No.129/2005 against the petitioner herein as

¶34

Crl.M.C. No. 116 of 2015

¶35

-: 3 :-

¶36

2^nd defendant and the 2^nd respondent herein as the 1^st defendant, challenging the power of attorney and the consequent sale deed. Declaration of title and possession as well as consequential injunction were also sought for in the suit. The suit was hotly contested and ultimately, it was dismissed through Annexure-A3 decree dated 19.10.2006.

¶37

In O.S.No.129/2005, the 2^nd respondent was examined as DW4. Annexure-A2 is the copy of his deposition in the suit. It seems that he had deposed that he had no direct acquaintance with the petitioner herein and he had no money transaction with him. His case was that the petitioner had visited the property once prior to the execution of the sale deed, for seeing the property. His further case is that he had approached several persons for the sale of the property and nobody was willing to purchase the property because of the presence of tenants in the property and ultimately, the petitioner purchased the property through the sale

¶38

Crl.M.C. No. 116 of 2015

¶39

-: 4 :-

¶40

deed. He has unequivocally deposed that a consideration of ₹8 lakhs was obtained from the petitioner and the said amount as a whole was entrusted by him to his father.

¶41

After deposing like that and the dismissal of the suit, the 2^nd respondent has preferred a complaint before the Rural SP, Kozhikode, the copy of which is appended with Annexure-A1. There, the 2^nd respondent has alleged that his 16.40 cents of property was snatched away by the petitioner by way of security when he had obtained an amount of 8 lakhs by way of₹ loan from the petitioner and even after, the payment of ₹ 10 lakhs, the property has not been re-conveyed. On getting the said complaint, immediately a crime was registered and swiftly, the final report has been filed by the Police after completing the so-called investigation. Much discussion is not required to conclude that the entire case forwarded by the 2^nd respondent are false. His present versions in the complaint are contradictory

¶42

Crl.M.C. No. 116 of 2015

¶43

-: 5 :-

¶44

to his versions in Annexure-A2 deposition. Any of the offences leveled against the petitioner in Annexure-A4 final report, based on Annexure-A1 FIR and complaint, are not legally sustainable. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.998/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Perambra, based on Annexure-A4 Final Report in Crime No.365/2014 of the Balussery Police Station, are liable to be quashed.

¶45

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No.998/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Perambra, based on Annexure-A4 Final Report in Crime No.365/2014 of the Balussery Police Station, are hereby quashed.

¶46

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶47

stu

Sreekumar R.Menon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekumar R.Menon 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

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala

Zacharias Poomkudy Vs State of Kerala

Manafudeen Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev.R Vs State of Kerala

Shanto Peter Vs State of Kerala

Sakkeer Nussain Vs State of Kerala