Disposed

Ranjini Jose v. K.D.Kishore

Kerala HC18 Sept 2017Crl.MC/1982/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous case involved in a cheque bouncing dispute. The petitioner contended false implication and misappropriation of cheques. Court declined to adjudicate substantive pleas, directed disposal on bail terms, and permitted future bail and exemption applications in trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear for bail; liberty to apply for personal exemption at appropriate stages; Crl.M.C. finally disposed of.

Ranjini Jose Vs K.D.Kishore — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/27TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1982 of 2017 ()

¶6

CC.1697/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

RANJINI JOSE, D/O BABU JOSE, HOUSE NO.34, SOWHARDA NAGAR, VENNALA P.O., COCHIN-28.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ALIKUNJU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶11

1. K.D. KISHORE, S/O DAMODARAN, KOOTUNGAL HOUSE, NJARACKAL, KOCHI-682505.

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.E.D.GEORGE

¶14

SRI.P.R.MADHUSUDANAN SRI.K.S.KESHOR KUMAR SMT.K.HASEENA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JESTIN MATHEW

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 1982 of 2017 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶20

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC.1697/2016 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NJARAKKAL

¶21

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.359/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT ERNAKULAM

¶22

ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC. 1098/2016 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NJARAKKAL

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C.No. 1982 of 2017

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2017 O R D E R

¶33

The petitioner is accused for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Anx. A-3 C.C.No.1098/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, NjaraKkal, instituted on the basis of the complainant filed by the 1^st respondent herein. The prayer in this Crl.M.C. filed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is to quash the impugned Anx.A-1 complaint in the abovesaid C.C.No. 1697/2016.

¶34

Heard.

¶35

It is pointed out that the dishonoured cheque dated 22.3.2016 stated to have been issued by the petitioner accused in relation to the impugned Anx.A1 complaint is for Rs.5 lakhs. It is the petitioner's case that she had no transactions whatsoever with the 1^st respondent complainant and that the petitioner has not borrowed any amount from the complainant and that she has not executed or issued any cheque to the 1^st respondent. Further that the 1^st respondent is in acquaintance with the petitioner's father and they were having some business transactions between them and that earlier this petitioner was

¶36

Crl.M.C.1982/17 - : 2 :-

¶37

residing with her parents and that after her marriage, the petitioner is residing in her marital home with her husband. That when the 1^st respondent was frequent visitor of the petitioner's paternal house, the 1^st respondent complainant had surreptitiously misappropriated some of the cheque leaves of the petitioner and has now used one such cheque and falsely instituted the complaint in Anx.A1, which led to C.C.No. 1697/2016, etc.

¶38

Further it is the case of the petitioner that there are several circumstances, which make it clear that Anx.A-1 complaint has been falsely instituted by the 1^st respondent against the petitioner. In this regard it is stated that on 4.3.2016, the father of the petitioner, Sri.Babu Jose, had filed a civil suit as O.S.No. 359/2016 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, as evident from Anx.A-2 dated 3.3.2016. Anx.A-2 suit was filed seeking injunction against the 1^st respondent.

¶39

Anx.A-1 complaint is said to have been filed against the petitioner on 30.5.2016. Anx.A-2 suit is said to have been filed by the petitioner's father against the 1^st respondent herein on 3.3.2016. Further that in the said suit, the petitioner's father has narrated all the financial transactions between him and the 1^st respondent and that those parties were conducting together with real estate business and that the father of the petitioner had invested amount of Rs.25 lakhs in the real estate business, which ended up in failure and that the petitioner's father was

¶40

Crl.M.C.1982/17 - : 3 :-

¶41

constrained to borrow an amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the 1^st respondent to meet his financial requirements and as a security for the said amount, the father of the petitioner issued two blank cheques to the 1^st respondent and thereafter, the 1^st respondent had started threatening the petitioner's father and he attempted to trespass into the rental house of the petitioner's father.

¶42

Further it is stated that when Ext.P-2 suit was pending, on 20.5.2016, the 1^st respondent had filed Anx.A-3 C.C.No.1098/2016 against the petitioner's father alleging offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That in Anx.A-3 complaint, the 1^st respondent had alleged that the petitioner's father had borrowed amount of Rs.25 lakhs from the 1^st respondent and in discharge of the said liability, the petitioner's father had issued 3 cheques to him.

¶43

It is stated that out of the 3 cheques, the cheque dated 24.2.2016 drawn on Federal bank, Kaloor branch, was dishonoured and on the basis of the said cheque, Anx.A-3 complaint was filed. When the cheque produced in Anx.A-3 C.C.No. 1098/2016 is for Rs.10 lakhs dated 24.2.2016, no information are disclosed therein regarding the other 2 cheques said to have been allegedly issued by the petitioner's father. Based on all these aspects, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no transactions whatsoever have taken place between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent and that the

¶44

Crl.M.C.1982/17 - : 4 :-

¶45

institution of Anx.A-1 complaint is on the basis of false allegations and that its continuance would amount to nothing short of grave abuse of the process of court.

¶46

Having anxiously considered the abovesaid aspects, this Court is of the considered view that it may not be proper and right for this Court to consider the above contentions at this stage and that too, in proceedings under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. when the main complaint at Anx.A-1 is pending for trial before the court below. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner should raise all her contentions in an appropriate manner before the trial court at the appropriate time and it is for the trial court to consider those aspects. Accordingly, the petitioner is given liberty to raise all her contentions before the trial court and leaving open all her contentions, it is ordered that the Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand finally disposed of. However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that in case the petitioner has not so far been granted bail, then she should appear before the trial court within a month and submit necessary application for grant of bail and should take steps for executing the requisite bond and to furnish two solvent sureties, as directed by the trial court. After securing bail, it is further ordered that in case the petitioner files an appropriate application through her counsel for securing personal exemption of her appearance by virtue of the enabling power under Sec.

¶47

Crl.M.C.1982/17 - : 5 :-

¶48

205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then the trial court shall consider the said plea favourably. It is also made clear that the petitioner will also be at liberty to file a proper application at the appropriate stage seeking personal exemption at the stage of Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. questioning process and such application may be considered by the trial court, subject to the fulfilment of the necessary conditions as envisaged in the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Basavaraj R.Patil & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 740 = 2000 KHC 814.

¶49

With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C. stands finally disposed of.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

sdk+

¶52

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶53

///True Copy///

¶54

P.S. to Judge

Ranjini Jose v. K.D.Kishore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjini Jose v. K.D.Kishore

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

Sony George Vs State of Kerala

Dinesh a. Vs Rajesh K.

Dakshayani A.C Vs Jubairiya A.K

Anil Kumar Vs Abdul Samad

Johnson Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Aslam Vs v.Manoj Kumar