Dismissed

V.P.Asokan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC13 Jan 2017Crl.MC/3704/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court dismissed the application to quash criminal proceedings for forgery and cheating. The Court held that despite the accused clearing the loan and contests of forgery, the trial court must consider the facts, allowing the accused to argue for discharge if entitled.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition to quash the criminal proceedings was dismissed; the petitioner is left to contest the case in the trial court.

V.P.Asokan Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/23RD POUSHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3704 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE CC 563/2010 OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE,VADAKARA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

V.P.ASOKAN

¶9

S/O.POKKAN,VADAKKAYIL POYIL HOUSE, CHETHAPURAM PO, KAKKATTIL VIA, VADAKARA

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE EDACHERRY POLICE STATION 673 502.

¶13

2. STATE

¶14

REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶15

3. MOHANAN KOROTH

¶16

SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK, OORKKATTERI 673 501.

¶17

R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.B. UDAYAKUMAR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 3704 of 2013 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND FINAL REPORT

¶23

ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE CHARGE

¶24

ANNEXURE III COPY OF THE RECEIPT

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//True copy//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHG/

K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, J.

¶31

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.3704 of 2013

¶32

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2017

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.563/2010 before

¶35

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara. The facts shorn of unnecessary details are as follows:

¶36

The petitioner is an Assistant Postmaster. During the period 31.8.2005 to 3.6.2006, he was on the charge of Postmaster. During the said period he availed a housing loan of Rs.5,25,000/- from Canara Bank, for which, he produced certain documents. When he defaulted the repayments, the Bank authorities contacted the Postal Superintendent and found that the salary certificate produced by the petitioner herein was a forged document. Thereon, an oral complaint was made by the Senior Manager of the Canara Bank, Orkkatteri branch before the police. Thereon F.I.R. No.565/2008 for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC is seen registered. The allegation is that for cheating the bank and obtaining the loan amount, the forged documents are produced. After

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.3704 of 2013

¶38

¶39

investigation, a charge was laid and the court took cognizance of the offences and took the case on file as C.C.No.563/2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara. Aggrieved by the said action of the court in taking cognizance on the police charge, this Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing the said proceedings.

¶40

When the petition came up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that even if any offence is committed, that will only an offence under Section 13 of P.C. Act and the local police got no jurisdiction to take cognizance. It is also the submission that the amount has already been remitted and at no stretch of imagination can it be said that the salary certificate produced was a forged one, when the petitioner was holding the post of the Postmaster under charge.

¶41

I have herd the learned Public Prosecutor, who submitted before me that here is not a case where any loss sustained to the postal department. It is also submitted before me that the officials of the bank never conspired with

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.3704 of 2013

¶43

¶44

the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the loss to the bank is nothing to do with any act of the officials employed by them and as there is no loss to the post office also, an offence under Section 13 of P.C. Act is not committed by the petitioner.

¶45

There is force in the submission of the Prosecutor. Surely, whether actually a forgery was committed to commit an offence under Section 420 of IPC is a fact to be considered by the trial court. Surely, the case of the petitioner is that he already paid and cleared the loan. This being a warrant trial case, the petitioner is even entitled to argue for a discharge, if so entitled. Thus, untrammeled by any of the observations made herein, he is entitled to contest his case before the trial court and even entitled to argue for a discharge, if he is so legally entitled.

¶46

With the above observations, this petition dismissed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE

¶49

//True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶50

shg/

V.P.Asokan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Asokan v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

K.P.Kuriakose Vs Stateof Kerala

Gopi Vs State of Kerala

Madhavan Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Santhi Vs State of Kerala

P.G.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Jose Vs State of Kerala