Allowed

M/S.Chemmanur Credits and Investments Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Sept 2018Crl.MC/2737/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by accused persons to quash criminal proceedings. The court concluded the FIR was a malicious attempt to defend against a cheque dishonour case and found the allegations of extortion implausible given the circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in crime no. 108/2018 of Perumbavoor Police Station are quashed.

M/S.Chemmanur Credits and Investments Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 4TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2737 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 108/2018 OF Perumbavoor Police Station , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :-

¶8

1 M/S.CHEMMANUR CREDITS AND INVESTMENTS LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM RURAL, FIRST FLOOR, MANGALODAYAM BUILDING, ROUND SOUTH, THRISSUR, PIN-68 001

¶9

REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI. JISSO BABY, S/O. C C BABY, AGED 39 YEARS, CHEMMANUR CREDITS AND INVESTMENTS LTD; THRISSUR

¶10

2 S.V.MANIKANDAN SO.M.S.VENUGOPAL FLAT NO.2,SKYLINE MANSION,KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM

¶11

3 JOJEE S/O.JOSE, MALIYAMMAVU VEEDU, PONOR,EDAKKALATH VILLAGE, THRISSUR

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,ON BEHALF OF THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION-682 031

¶15

2 A.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR AGED 40 YEARS, KATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE,RAYAMANGALAM, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM RURAL,KERALA-683 542

¶16

R2 BY ADVS.

¶17

SRI.R.DINESH SRI.ELDHO JOHN

¶18

R1 BY SRI.ALEX M THOMBRA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 2737 of 2018

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.

¶24

108 of 2018 of Perumbavoor Police Station registered for the offence under section 384 IPC. The first petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The second petitioner is the General Manager and the third petitioner is the P.R.O of the company. It was on the information given by the second respondent the police registered the case. His wife was an employee of the first petitioner company. She was working as Manager at its office at Perumbavoor. On 22.04.2006 she executed Annexure-A3 agreement on stamp paper admitting that she had committed some financial illegality and irregularity. The second respondent is a witness in it. He undertook that he would pay the company Rs.5,00,000/- within 90 days. It is stated in the agreement that he executed a post dated cheque and a promissory note and he and his wife handed over to the company her old ornaments as a security for the amount. On 09.01.2018 the second respondent filed Annexure-A1 complaint before the Circle Inspector of

¶25

Crl.MC.No. 2737 of 2018

¶26

¶27

Police, Perumbavoor who led to the registering of this case. The allegation is that the signatures of the second respondent and his wife were obtained in Annexure-A3 agreement by intimidation and he was threatened into parting with the gold ornaments valued at Rs.3,00,000/- and the post dated cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- and the promissory note for the same amount. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that it is a malicious prosecution.

¶28

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

3. Admittedly, the second respondent's wife was working as Manager at the office of the first

¶30

petitioner company. In Annexure-A3 agreement which bears the signatures of the second respondent and his wife, it is stated that she committed certain illegalities and irregularities and she undertook to pay Rs.5,00,000/- within 90 days to the company. It is further stated in the agreement that as a security for the payment of the amount her gold

¶31

Crl.MC.No. 2737 of 2018

¶32

¶33

ornaments and a cheque and a promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/- executed by the second respondent were handed over to the officers of the company. It is clearly mentioned that the wife of the second

¶34

respondent was given a copy of the agreement.

¶35

4. It is a wonder that the Sub Inspector of Police made a company an accused in the case registered under section 384 IPC.

¶36

5. The second respondent in his complaint has

¶37

stated that it was not his wife who committed the financial irregularities but another officer by name Tomy Thomas, but his wife was intimidated into executing the agreement. This is denied by the second and third petitioners.

¶38

6. The controversial Annexure-A3 agreement was executed on 24.09.2016 by the second respondent's wife. The second respondent is a witness in it. She should have paid the company Rs.5,00,000/within 90 days. She did not do so. The company presented the cheque issued by the second respondent for encashment. That was returned dishonoured for

¶39

Crl.MC.No. 2737 of 2018

¶40

¶41

want of sufficient fund in his account. Thereupon on 24.11.2017 the company issued Annexure-A4 notice demanding him to pay the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days as required in section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. On 04.02.2017 his wife sent Annexure-R2(a) complaint to the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ernakulam alleging that she was intimidated into executing the agreement and handing over gold ornaments, cheque and promissory note. On 10.02.2017 the second respondent issued Annexure-A5 reply notice to the first petitioner company raising the same allegation and he denied his liability to pay the amount covered by the cheque. It is not known what happened to complaint filed by the second respondent's wife before the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ernakulam. On 07.03.2017 the first petitioner company filed a complaint under section 138 of N.I Act against the second respondent on the basis of the dishonoured cheque. It was long thereafter he lodged Annexure-A1 complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor on the

¶42

Crl.MC.No. 2737 of 2018

¶43

¶44

basis of which the case was registered. I have gone

¶45

through the Annexure-A1 complaint filed by the second respondent before the Circle Inspector of Police and Annexure R2(a) complaint sent by his wife

¶46

to the Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam. In none of the complaints an explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint is mentioned.

¶47

7. The second respondent is not a illiterate man. He had been an employee of the Indian Air Force for 23 years. During the relevant period he was working as a Manager in an agency given by the SBI Life Insurance. It is difficult to believe that he could be intimidated into executing a cheque and a promissory note and his wife could be intimidated into parting with her ornaments in his presence.

¶48

8. The agreement executed by the wife of the second respondent clearly mentions that the ornaments, the cheque and promissory note were taken as a security for the amount due from the second respondent's wife to the company. By no stretch of

¶49

imagination it can be said that it amounted to

¶50

Crl.MC.No. 2737 of 2018

¶51

¶52

extortion.

¶53

9. I have no doubt that the complaint was filed only in an attempt to set up a defence in the case filed by the petitioner company against the second respondent under section 138 of NI Act. In other words, the compalint was filed with malicious intention. It is liable to be quashed.

¶54

In the result this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in crime No. 108 of 2018 of Perumbavoor Police Station are quashed.

¶55

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶56

SMA

¶57

Crl.MC.No. 2737 of 2018

¶58

¶59

APPENDIX

¶60

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶61

ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.108/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE PERUMBAVOOR POLICE DATED 9/1/2018 ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 939/2016 OF THE PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE WIFE OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT, THE 2ND PETITIONER AND THE MANAGER OF COMMERCIAL BANKERS ANNEXURE A-4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE ISSUED TO THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BY THE LEGAL OFFICE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 24/1/2017 ANNEXURE A-5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT TO THE LEGAL OFFICE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 10/2/2017 ANNEXURE A-6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT TENDERED BY THE WIFE OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER COMPANY ANNEXURE A-7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7/3/2017 FILED BY THE LEGAL OFFICE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATES COURT, THRISSUR AGAINST THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶62

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS :- NIL

¶63

//TRUE COPY//

¶64

PA TO JUDGE

¶65

SMA

M/S.Chemmanur Credits and Investments Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Chemmanur Credits and Investments Ltd. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesan Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Prakash. P Vs Nandagopan. a

Bobby Vs the State of Kerala

Maneesh Vs Kerala State

Ummu Kulsu Vs the State of Kerala

Suresh Babu Vs State of Kerala