Dismissed

Mayi Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2606/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the prayer to quash the FIR alleging forgery of documents as it was too early to investigate the claim regarding the validity of the certificates. The court instead granted the petitioner 10 days to surrender before the learned Magistrate to seek bail, directing the inferior court to consider the application on merits.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash FIR rejected. Petitioner directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate within 10 days and seek bail.

Mayi Krishnan Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/25TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2606 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------CRIME NO. 971/2015 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

MAYI KRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOVINDAN, MAYI HOUSE, P.O. KARANTHAD, KUNNARU, VIA. RAMANTHALI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

CRL.MC.NO.2606/2016

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEX 1	COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.971 OF 2015 REGISTERED BY PAYYANNUR POLICE.
ANNEX 2	COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC.NO.5877/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 14/09/2015.
ANNEX 3	COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16/09/2015 ISSUED BY DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, BISHNUPUR DISTRICT, MANIPUR.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.2606 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

1.The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.971/2015 registered by the Payyannur police alleging offence punishable under S.468, 471, 120(b) of the IPC. The 1^st accused in the said crime is one Abdulla.

¶29

2.On 13.07.2015 at 4.45 p.m., during routine inspection of vehicles, the 1^st accused was intercepted while he was proceeding in a scooter. On demand, he handed over his driving license issued by the District Transport Officer, Bishnupur District, Manipur to the officer concerned. Prosecution alleges that 1^st accused on questioning disclosed that he had no occasion to go to Manipur to secure the license and the same was handed over to him by the petitioner herein on payment of a sum of

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.2606 of 2016 : 2 :

¶31

Rs.2,000/-. Later, inspection was conducted in the Auto Consulting Center run by the petitioner herein and one more license issued from the RTO, Manipur was seized. It was on its basis that the aforesaid crime was registered.

¶32

3.The petitioner contends that the conclusion made that the driving license is forged and fabricated is a mistaken assumption by the Investigating officer. He relies on Annexure 3 certificate issued by the District Transport Officer, Bishnupur District, Manipur, to buttress his contention.

¶33

4.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the investigation is at the infant stage and it is too early in the day to accept the contention of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the investigating officer has prima facie come to the conclusion that Annexure 3 certificate is not validly issued by the concerned Department at Manipur.

¶34

5.It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.2606 of 2016 : 3 :

¶36

petitioner was directed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.5877 of 2015 to surrender before the Investigating officer and the investigating officer was directed to consider whether arrest of the petitioner was required in connection with the case. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer and had cooperated with the investigation.

¶37

6.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or Annexure

¶38

The extraordinary inherent powers of this Court does not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on this Court to act according to its whim or caprice. This prayer to quash Annexure 1 FIR is rejected.

¶39

7.The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is prepared to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek for Bail. Taking note of the entire aspects, and also

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.2606 of 2016 : 4 :

¶41

of the specific contention of the petitioner that Annexure 3 is validly issued, I am of the view that this an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to surrender and seek Bail. The petitioner in the said circumstances is directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate within 10 days from the date of this Order after giving advance notice to the prosecutor concerned, and the Court below is directed to consider his application on its merits and in accordance with law, preferably on the date of surrender itself.

¶42

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶43

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶44

¶45

[True copy]

¶46

P.A to Judge

Mayi Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayi Krishnan 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sudheer Vs State of Kerala

Nidhin Vs State of Kerala

Deepak Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Marakkar Vs State of Kerala