Allowed

John Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 May 2018Crl.MC/2252/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Criminal M.C. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings against accused 2 and 4 in a cheating case. After ascertaining that a settlement was reached with the victim and no public interest remained, the proceedings were quashed and directions were issued for disposal of material objects.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in CC No. 240 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam are quashed. if any material objects have been produced in the case, the learned mag

John Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶3

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2018 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1940

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 2252 of 2018

¶5

CC 240/2017 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT(E&O),ERNAKULAM

¶6

CRIME NO. 410/2011 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 2 AND 4

¶8

1 JOHN THOMAS,

¶9

AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, PADIPURACKAL HOUSE, PUNNATHILPADAM ROAD, PALARIVATTOM

¶10

2 ABHILASH,

¶11

AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. JAYAPRAKASH K, KAPPADAMVEEDU, NETTOOR P.O, THALASSERY PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PANIKKARUVEETTIL, KOLATHERY ROAD,POONITHURA 682 038

¶12

BY ADV.SRI.JACOB CHACKO

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶15

(CRIME NO. 410/2011-SHO ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,.

¶16

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶17

2. JOSE FRANCIS MANNULLY

¶18

AGED 42 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.-DS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,

¶19

28/664C, K.P VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI 682 020

¶20

R1 BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITWIK R2 BY ADV. SRI.SREENATH V.GOPAL

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

PBS

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 2252 of 2018 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS AND FIR DATED 23-02-2011 ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE DATED 28-05-2012 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09-02-2017 IN CRML. M.C NO. 661/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ANNEXURE A4 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16-02-2018 RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL

¶26

/TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE

¶27

PBS 21/05/2018

¶28

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶29

-------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 2252 of 2018

¶30

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2018

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶33

2.The petitioners were accused 2 & 4 in CC No. 153 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The

¶34

accused allegedly committed the offences under Sections 406, 420 & 465 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings as against accused 1 & 5 to 8 were quashed in Crl.M.C. No. 661 of 2017 (Annexure A3) in view of the settlement between them and the second respondent (the victim). The prayer is to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners also. The proceedings as against them are pending in CC No. 240 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam.

¶35

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶36

Crl.M.C. No. 2252 of 2018

¶37

..2..

¶38

4.I have perused the affidavit filed by the second respondent, who is the victim. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled between the petitioners and the second respondent. There is no public interest involved in this case.

¶39

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The proceedings in CC No. 240 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam are quashed. If any material objects have been produced in the case, the learned magistrate may pass appropriate orders for their disposal.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶42

bka/21.05.2018

John Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Thomas 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

C.A. Binu Vs Jinto Joseph

Sampath Rao Bappu Pattil Vs State of Kerala

Paul Stephen Vs P.E.Thomas

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Dinesh Vs Subhash