Dismissed

Balachandran C. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2018Bail Appl./1928/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by four accused charged with cheating. The applicants failed to meet a mediation settlement to partly repay a defaulting deposit, which the Public Prosecutor argued involved numerous defrauded investors.

What did the court decide?

Applicants directed to surrender to Investigating Officer; anticipatory bail denied.

Balachandran C. Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 19TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1928 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 322/2017 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED(1-4):

¶8

1 BALACHANDRAN C., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. ARAVINTHAKSHA MENON, CHUNGATH HOUSE, METHALA P.O, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2 ANILKUMAR K., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. ARAVINTHAKSHA MENON, CHUNGATH HOUSE, METHALA P.O, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3 MADHUSOODANAN K., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. ARAVINTHAKSHA MENON, CHUNGATH HOUSE, METHALA P.O, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

4 ARAVINTHAKSHA MENON, AGED 83 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDANKUTTY MENON, CHUNGATH HOUSE, METHALA P.O, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

2 ADDL. R2:ASHRAF, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. LATE HAMSAKOYA, KADAMBOTT HOUSE, ERIAYAD DESOM, ERIAYAD P.O., ERIAYAD VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-69020.

¶16

BA:1928/17

¶17

¶18

ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.6.2017 IN CRIL.M.A. NO.6791 OF 2017.

¶19

R2 BY ADVS.SRI.K.N.MUHAMMED THANVEER SRI.K.SHAMEER MOHAMMED SRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR) SRI.T.V.SHAJI

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶25

The applicants herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime

¶26

No.322 of 2017 registered at the Kodungalloor Police Station under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶27

According to the prosecution, the applicants herein are the partners of a financial concern by name M/s. Parasakthi Finance. They collected huge sums of money from unsuspecting public assuring that the amount would be returned with profit and interest after the maturity period. The specific case of the prosecution is that the father of the de facto complainant deposited a sum of Rs.15 lakhs in the aforesaid concern in the year 2011. He was entitled to

¶28

BA:1928/17

¶29

¶30

the matured amount on 30.12.2013. When the applicants failed to return the amount even after the maturity period, he lodged a complaint based on which, the aforesaid crime was registered.

¶31

While the matter was pending before this Court, the de facto complainant filed an application seeking intervention. The applicants offered to settle the disputes and requested that the matter be referred to mediation. The said suggestion was agreeable to the de facto complainant as well. The parties were referred to mediation and it appears that a settlement was arrived at. Instead of Rs.15 lakhs which was actually due, the applicants offered to

¶32

settle the disputes on payment of a sum of Rs.9 lakhs in 5 installments. A memorandum of agreement was arrived at, which was signed by the applicants and the additional 2^nd respondent. The 1^st installment fell due on 16.8.2018 and the 2^nd installment fell due on 30.9.2018. Not even a single paise was paid.

¶33

When the matter was taken up today for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that they were unable to clear off the liabilities due to financial constraints.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and the

¶35

BA:1928/17

¶36

¶37

learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that numerous other investors were defrauded by the applicants herein and they were deprived of their hard-earned money. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am not persuaded to extend the benefits of an order under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to the applicants.

¶38

I direct the applicants to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the court having jurisdiction and seek regular bail. If an application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits on the same day itself.

¶39

This application is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶42

krj

¶43

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Balachandran C. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balachandran C. 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

Georgekutty John Vs State of Kerala

Hemamalini Vs State of Kerala

N.Dharmaraj Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

P.D. Devassia Vs State of Kerala