Dismissed

Naveen Narayanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Mar 2018Bail Appl./839/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed anticipatory bail petitions filed by accused persons charged with forgery and cheating. Rejecting the claim of frivolous allegations, the court found overwhelming evidence in the case diary and registers indicating the petitioners' involvement and refused bail.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are dismissed. The petitioners are permitted to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the Court having jurisdiction expeditiousl

Naveen Narayanan 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

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 2ND CHAITHRA,1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 839 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 153/2018 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

¶8

NAVEEN NARAYANAN S/O.C.K.NARAYANAN, AGED 39 YEARS, PALLAVI HOUSE, THOTTAPURA, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION.

¶12

**(ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED)*

¶13

ADDL.R2 LAKSHMI, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O/NAVEEN NARAYAN, RESIDING AT PALLAVI, THOTTAPPURA, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD.

¶14

(ADDLR2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CRL.M.A.1575/2018 DATED 23.3.2018).

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI. ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2018,ALONG WITH B.A.No.913/2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

AL/-

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = B.A. Nos. 839 of 2018 & 913 of 2018

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2018

¶21

ORDER

¶22

By these separate petitions filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.153 of 2018 of the Palakkad Town South Police Station seek anticipatory bail. In the above Crime, the petitioners are accused of having committed offence punishable under Sections 464, 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 r/w. Section 34 of IPC

¶23

The de facto complainant in the instant case is the wife of the 1^st petitioner. In the year 2011, a property having an extent of 0.0160 hectares was purchased jointly in the name of the informant and one Shafeek, the 3^rd accused in the Crime. The informant and the 1^st accused fell apart in the year 2013 and they are not in good terms since then. She realized in the month of November, 2014 that the 1^st accused was having some relationship with the 2^nd accused, who was working as his subordinate in the same office. Proceedings were initiated before the Family Court seeking

¶24

-:2:-

¶25

BA.Nos.839/2018 & 913/2018

¶26

divorce and for custody of the children. On 7.1.2018, the informant was called up by her sister and she was told that the property purchased in the year 2011 was assigned in favour of the 3^rd accused without her consent or knowledge by impersonating her. The specific allegation is that the 1^st accused who was working as the Head Clerk at the Sub Registrar's office at Palakkad, acting in prior concert with the rest of the accused, impersonated the de facto complainant and, after forging her signature, executed a release deed as Document No.5053 of 2014 in respect of her one-half share in favour of the 3^rd accused , who was the co-owner, with the active assistance and aid of the rest of the accused. Specific overt act is alleged against each

¶27

and every accused. A complaint raising the above allegations were furnished before the Station House Officer, Palakkad Town South Police Station, which led to the registration of the instant Crime.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the

¶29

learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant.

¶30

BA.Nos.839/2018 & 913/2018

¶31

-:3:-

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st accused submitted that the allegations levelled against him are frivolous and vexatious. It is submitted that even before the Family Court, the de facto complainant had asserted that the 1^st accused was having an illicit relationship with the 2^nd accused. but the same was not accepted. According to the learned counsel, the case rests on documentary evidence alone for which, custodial interrogation is uncalled for. It is pointed out that the 1^st accused is a government servant and, if he is arrested and detained on these frivolous allegations, it would adversely affect his career.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd accused also raised more or less the same contentions. According to him, the allegations levelled against her are baseless.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor has made available the case diary. The statement of the District Registrar(General) was also made available. It is submitted that it was on 10.9.2014 at about 3.25 p.m., that the release deed was registered. The victim as well as the 1^st accused were at logger heads during this period. The 1^st accused was in

¶35

-:4:-

¶36

BA.Nos.839/2018 & 913/2018

¶37

charge as the Senior Clerk Sri. Vipin was not on duty after lunch. The Document No.5053 of 2014 was the deed which was last registered in the said office on 10.09.2014. The accused Nos.1 & 2 had signed the document in various capacities and the records also reveal that the Rules and Regulations were given a go by. It is further submitted that the errant officers have been suspended and departmental proceedings have been initiated.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant supported the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that on the date of registration, the petitioners were the persons in charge and they were instrumental in registering the release deed in favour of the 4^th accused. Numerous corrections have been made in the document and also in the register and on enquiry made by the District Register it was found that the petitioners herein have forged records for the purpose of registering the deed.

¶39

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. There are overwhelming materials in the case diary which points to the involvement of the

¶40

-:5:-

¶41

BA.Nos.839/2018 & 913/2018

¶42

petitioners. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that the allegations are false and frivolous. The registers seized from the office and the endorsements made in the release deed and the registers speak volumes with regard to the involvement of the petitioners in the Crime. A deeper probe into the matters is not warranted at this stage, as it is likely to prejudice the cause of the petitioners.

¶43

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed, the materials in support thereof and attendant facts, I find no reason to grant an order of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶44

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prays that the petitioners be permitted to surrender and directions be issued to consider their application for bail. I find no reason to issue any specific directions as prayed for, particularly in a petition under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the Court having jurisdiction, expeditiously. There is no reason for the petitioners to apprehend that the application

¶45

-:6:-

¶46

BA.Nos.839/2018 & 913/2018

¶47

for bail filed by them will not be considered expeditiously

¶48

and on its merits.

¶49

These petitions will stand dismissed.

¶50

Raja Vijayaraghavan V.,

¶51

Judge

¶52

al/-xxxxx

Naveen Narayanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Narayanan 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

T.a.Koshore Vs State of Kerala

T.a.Kishore Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Usmankutty Vs State of Kerala

Shirosh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Simon Vs State of Kerala