Allowed

Khurshid Marakayer v. Korah John

Kerala HC6 Feb 2018Crl.MC/565/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court at Ernakulam allowed the petitioner's claim that the investigation into alleged fraud and cheating by project officials was malafide and incomplete, leading to the discharge of some accused without proper inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A2 (Final Report) quashed; Investigation ordered to be taken over by Economic Offences Wing of CBCID to be conducted by an officer not below DSP rank.

Khurshid Marakayer Vs Korah John — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 17TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 565 of 2018

¶6

CC. NO.642/2016 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT(E&O), ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT.

¶8

KHURSHID MARAKAYER, S/O K. MOHAMMED MOHIDEEN, FLAT NO.7B, WHITEWATERS PHASE-2, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANJAY,

¶10

SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. KORAH JOHN, S/O LATE. M.K. JOHN, MARIKUDI HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O, PAZHANGANAD KARA, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 562.

¶13

2. SUSAN ZACHARIAH, W/O JOHN ZACHARIAH, MARIKUDI HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O, PAZHANGANAD KARA, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 562.

¶14

3. JOSE M.MURICKAN, DIRECTOR, MILGRAM DIARY VALLEY PROJECT, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O, PAZHANGANAD KARA, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 562.

¶15

4. JACOB JOHN PARACKAL, DIRECTOR, MILGRAM DAIRY VALLEY PROJECT, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O, PAZHANGANAD KARA, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 562.

¶16

5. DR. AVINASH,

¶17

PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR & AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MILGRAM DIARY VALLEY PROJECT, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O, PAZHANGANAD KARA, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 562.

¶18

6. STATE OF KERALA,

¶19

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA THROUGH THE SI OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PIN-682 015.

¶20

R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

rs.

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 565 of 2018 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶26

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE BY TH	COPY OF E PETITI	THE ONER	COMPLAINT DATED 23.02.2016 FILED .
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE SUBMI	COPY OF TTED BY	THE THE	FINAL REPORT DATED 02.03.2016 6TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE DAIRY	COPY OF VALLEY	THE PROJ	PROJECT PROFILE OF MILGRAM ECT.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE	COPY OF	THE	AGREEMENT DATED 26.02.2009.
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE 17.10	COPY OF .2008.	THE	RECEIPTS DATED 04.10.2008 AND
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE	COPY OF	THE	RECEIPT DATED 26.02.2009.
RESPONDENT'S AN	NEXURES :		N	IL.
				//TRUE COPY//
				P.S. TO JUDGE

¶27

rs.

¶28

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.565 of 2018

¶30

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2018

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

In the name and style of a company named “Dairy Valley Project”, Peermedu Taluk, Idukki District, Kerala allegedly having the registered office at Pazhanganad, Kizhakkambalam, an amount of Rs.21 Lakhs was collected from the petitioner, who is the defacto complainant in Crime No.252/2016 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station. Three payments made by the petitioner were through cheques, for which Annexures-A5 and A6 receipts (three in numbers) were also issued. Those cheques were collected through a particular account at the Federal Bank, Aluva.

¶33

Strangely enough the investigating officer has taken a view that all the other office bearers of the project, who were instrumental in collecting the amount from the petitioner, had not committed any offence. This is a case wherein the petitioner was defrauded and cheated through a false representation that he would be provided with 2.5 acres

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.565 of 2018 2

¶35

of land along with ten cows and other things. In fact, the said project had not acquired any land and they were not in possession of any chattels or domestic animals, as aforesaid.

¶36

The investigating officer has made a short cut saying that only one person who is arraigned as the present accused was instrumental in collecting the amount. At the same time, the second receipt in Annexure-A5 was issued by the 5^th respondent. Even though the said receipt was shown to the investigating officer, the investigating officer simply believed the statement of the 5^th respondent and took it as granted and exonerated him. The investigating officer has not even arraigned the persons who had actually collected the amount through bank account also as accused.

¶37

The entire investigation was malafide and there was no investigation at all apart from a mere eye wash. The investigating officer has deliberately aided the actual accused in the case, who had cheated and defrauded the defacto complainant and also possibly several other members of the public. Annexure-A2 final report is liable to be quashed and a re-investigation has to be conducted. The re-investigation shall be taken up by the Economic Offences Wing of the

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.565 of 2018 3

¶39

CBCID, Ernakulam. An officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Economic Offences Wing of the CBCID, Ernakulam shall conduct an expeditious investigation and complete it expeditiously.

¶40

In the result, this CrlM.C. is allowed and Annexure-A2 stands quashed. The investigation shall be taken over and conducted by the Economic Offences Wing of the CBCID, as aforesaid.

¶41

Sd/B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶42

Khurshid Marakayer v. Korah John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khurshid Marakayer v. Korah John

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

Junsiff Vs Ratheesh

K.A. Rauf Vs State of Kerala

Lanesh Vs State of Kerala

T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs State Police Chief

Sujith.P.S Vs the State of Kerala

Sebin Vs State of Kerala