Dismissed

Prassanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Dec 2018Crl.MC/4671/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Prosecutor sought bail quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging the accused fraudulently obtained bail by suppressing a prior Supreme Court order restraining his arrest. The High Court held the Magistrate considered the matter on merits, precluding interference.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed, and the bail order granted to the second respondent is upheld.

Prassanan Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4671 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 967/2017 of J.M.F.C.-I, MAVELIKKARA DATED 09-03-2017

¶7

CRIME NO. 1981/2015 OF Mavelikkara Police Station , Alappuzha

¶8

PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶9

PRASSANAN AGED 49 YEARS,S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KANNAMKOMATH, KADUVINAL.P.O, VALLIKUNNAM, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE/ACCUSED:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031, (CRIME NO.1981/2015 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT).

¶13

-:2:-

¶14

Crl.M.C. 4671/17

¶15

2 N.RUBY RAJ ADVOCATE,S/O.NATARAJAN, KAMBISSERIL VEEDU, KOTTARAKKAVU MURI,MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690101.

¶16

BY ADVS. SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

¶17

SRI. ALEX M.THOMBRA, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C. 4671/17

-:3:-

ORDER

On the information given by the petitioner Crime No.1981 of 2015 was registered at Mavelikkara Police Station for the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 468 IPC. The second respondent is the accused. He is an advocate practicing in the courts at Mavelikara. The prosecution case is this : Three persons owed the petitioner certain amounts. The petitioner engaged the second respondent to file a complaint in the criminal court and to file two suits in civil courts in respect of the transactions. The second respondent filed a complaint. The accused was acquitted. The second respondent did not inform the petitioner about it. The former received from the petitioner certain amount towards court fees and other expenses for filing the two suits. The second respondent filed two suits. The petitioner realised that the second respondent had remitted only one tenth of the court fees and the plaints were rejected for nonpayment of the balance court fees. The second respondent filed applications to restore the suits to file. They were also

¶23

Crl.M.C. 4671/17

¶24

-:4:-

¶25

dismissed. In the plaint in which the petitioner’s signatures were obtained there was a recital that the full court fees was being paid. But in the plaint filed in the court the statement was that only one tenth of the court fees was being paid at the time of the institution of the suit. The signatures of the petitioner were forged in the applications filed to restore the suits to file. The second respondent filed Crl.M.C. No. 122 of 2016 in this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. in which this court restrained the investigating officer from arresting him. But suppressing this fact the second respondent surrendered before the learned Magistrate, who granted him regular bail, which is produced in the case as Annexure-VII. The application filed by the investigating officer for obtaining custody of the second respondent was dismissed by Annexure-VIII order on the very same day. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order. The prayer in this Crl.M.C is to set aside the order granting bail to the second respondent.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rukmani Mahato v. The State of

¶28

-:5:-

¶29

Crl.M.C. 4671/17

¶30

Jharkhand (Spl. Leave Petition No.2411/2016) in support of his argument that the bail order was obtained by committing fraud upon the leaned Magistrate. According to him when this court had seized of the matter and passed an order restraining arrest of the second respondent, he should not have surrendered before the court below suppressing it and the learned Magistrate should not have granted him regular bail. In the above case the Supreme Court has held that surrender of the accused in such circumstances is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law.

¶31

But that alone cannot be a ground to set aside the bail granted to the second respondent because the learned Magistrate considered the matter on merits also. That apart, the order restraining arrest was not passed on a bail application.

¶32

The learned counsel submits that police custody of the second respondent was necessary in order to recover the plaint in which the second respondent had obtained the signature of the petitioner. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1632) a Constitution Bench has held that even in a case in which anticipatory bail has been granted to an accused the police can obtain his custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But in this case the investigation

¶33

Crl.M.C. 4671/17

¶34

-:6:-

¶35

conducted so far has not revealed the necessity of custody of the second respondent. In the bail order the learned Magistrate has directed the second respondent to appear before the investigating officer. The investigating officer has no case that he has obtained information from the second respondent for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. So it cannot be held that custody of the second respondent is necessary for the purpose of Section 27 of the evidence Act. For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶36

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

vps 17/12

-:7:-

Crl.M.C. 4671/17

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKARA ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1981/2015 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2016 IN CRL.M.APPL.NO.186/2016 IN CRL.MC NO.122/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FROM FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY DATED 02.02.2017 ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,MAVELIKKARA ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE CUSTODY APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER ANNEXURE VII CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2017 IN CMP NO.967/2017 IN CRIME NO.1981/2015 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,MAVELIKARA GRANTING BAIL TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶45

-:8:-

¶46

Crl.M.C. 4671/17

¶47

ANNEXURE VIII COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2017 IN CMP NO.966/2017 IN CRIME NO 1981/2015 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,MAVELIKARA.

¶48

RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS:

¶49

NIL

¶50

/True Copy/

¶51

vps PS to Judge

Prassanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prassanan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Shaji Vs State of Kerala

K.S Shaji Vs State of Kerala

A.M.Manju Vs State of Kerala

Thahir Vs the State of Kerala

Sudheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev Vs State of Kerala