Disposed

Shanavas B. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2016Crl.MC/47/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala entertained a criminal miscellaneous maintainability challenge to an FIR under Section 420 IPC for cheating involving financial fraud and gold delivery failure. The bench held that the FIR was legitimate, jurisdiction existed, and the matter was not purely civil, directing investigation. The petitioners were granted liberty to challenge the Final Report later.

What did the court decide?

Let the matter be investigated and let the truth come out. Liberty granted to petitioners to challenge the Final Report later.

Shanavas B. 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 B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/13TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 47 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1224/2015 OF VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SHANAVAS B., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.V.M.BASHEER, BEE & BEE INVESTMENTS, DOOR NO.XL/251, KALATHIL BUILDINGS, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 11, RESIDING AT AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

2. B.M.BASHEER, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED YOUSEF, BEE & BEE INVESTMENTS, DOOR NO.XL/251, KALATHIL BUILDINGS, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 11, RESIDING ATAYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

3. K.M.SHEERIJAN, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.V.M.BASHEER, RESIDING AT SHANAVAS MANZIL, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.G.RENJITH SMT.ASHA BABU SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR SMT.S.PARVATHI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 47 of 2016 ()

¶16

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 005.

¶17

4. DR.B.GOVINDAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING PARTNER, BHIMA JEWELLERY, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

DSV/5/3/16

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 47 of 2016 ()

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES :

¶24

ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DT.12.10.2015 IN CRIME NO.1224 OF 2015 OF THE VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION.

¶25

ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.12.10.15 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE STATE POLICE CHIEF.

¶26

ANNEXURE-C: COPY OF INVOICE, RECEIPTS ETC. IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

ANNEXURE-D: COPY OF INVOICE, RECEIPTS ETC. IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES :

NIL

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

DSV/5/3/16

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶34

====================

¶35

CRL.M.C.No.47 of 2016

¶36

==================== Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2016

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

What is under challenge is Annexure-A First Information Report in Crime No.1224 of 2015 of the Vanchiyoor Police Station, registered for the offences under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

¶39

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

¶40

attacks the First Information Report on three grounds:

¶41

First ground is that the Vanchiyoor Police has no jurisdiction to register the crime.

¶42

Secondly that Annexure-A First Information Report is the second First Information Report, which is not legally sustainable.

¶43

Thirdly that the matter involved is purely civil in nature, which will not invite an offence under Section 420 IPC.

¶44

CRL.M.C.No.47 of 2016

¶45

-: 2 :-

¶46

Annexure-A First Information Report says that the

¶47

defacto complainant from his bank accounts at the HDFC Bank, at Thiruvananthapuram transferred through RTGS, an amount of ₹6,30,50,000/- on 13.08.2015 to the accused to Mumbai, for getting 25 Kgs of gold bars delivered. The amount was transferred to SSB International. Thereafter, on 17.08.2015, another amount of ₹7,71,60,000/- was transferred, through RTGS, to Bee Bee Investment, for getting 30 Kgs of gold bars delivered. It is alleged that the gold bars were not supplied. Orders were cancelled by SSB International as well as Bee Bee Investment, of which the petitioners are part of. Out of the amount of ₹7,71,60,000/-, they have returned an amount of ₹6,67,60,000/- and have not cared to return the balance amount of ₹1,04,00,000/-. Further, they have not cared to return the amount of ₹6,30,50,000/-obtained by them for the delivery of 25 Kgs of gold bars. Therefore, it is alleged that they have caused a wrongful loss of ₹7,34,50,000/- to the defacto complainant.

¶48

CRL.M.C.No.47 of 2016

¶49

-: 3 :-

¶50

There is an allegation that the said two institutions, named, SSB International and Bee Bee Investment of the petitioners had induced the defacto complainant to part with such amounts.

¶51

The present stage is too premature to conclude that the allegations against the petitioners will not invite an offence under Section 420 IPC. At present, it cannot be said that the transaction is purely civil in nature. It depends on evidence to be collected in the matter. Therefore, an investigation is required.

¶52

With regard to the jurisdiction of the Vanchiyoor Police to register the crime, this Court is of the view that part of the transaction has occurred at Thiruvananthapuram, from where the amount was transferred to the accounts of SSB International as well as Bee Bee Investment. Even though the amount has gone to Mumbai, the transaction originated at the HDFC Bank at Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, at present it cannot be said that the Vanchiyoor

¶53

CRL.M.C.No.47 of 2016

¶54

-: 4 :-

¶55

Police has no jurisdiction to register the crime.

¶56

With regard to the argument that Annexure-A is the 2^nd First Information Report, this Court is of the view that Annexure-A has been registered on the basis of Annexure-B complaint preferred by the defacto complainant. That is discernible from Annexure-A itself. Annexure-A clearly shows that Annexure-B complaint filed before the State Police Chief was forwarded to the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram and the same was forwarded to the Vanchiyoor Police Station. Annexure-A cannot be categorised as a second First Information Report. The matter requires investigation. The present stage is too premature to conclude that the allegations against the petitioners will not invite an offence under Section 420 IPC or that the allegations are false. Let the matter be investigated and the truth come out.

¶57

With liberty to the petitioners to challenge the Final Report in case of further grievance in the matter, this

¶58

CRL.M.C.No.47 of 2016

¶59

-: 5 :-

¶60

Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

¶61

This order will not stand in the way of the petitioners to

¶62

take up all these contentions at appropriate stage.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶65

DSV/3/3/16

¶66

// True Copy //

¶67

P.A. To Judge

Shanavas B. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanavas B. 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

M.Prabhaker Kini Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds), Kochi

Aziz Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shareef Vs State of Kerala

Aji Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Gokuldas Vs State of Kerala

Latheef Vs State of Kerala