Allowed

Ramesh Menon v. Dhanesh Kumar v.

Kerala HC3 Sept 2018Crl.MC/7312/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala in criminal miscellaneous cases allowed petitions to quash criminal proceedings before a Judicial Magistrate. The court held that proceedings against unnamed accused (CEO and MD) were unsustainable, the complaint failed to disclose identities of persons who allegedly assaulted the complainant, and the Magistrate failed to apply mind to the factual allegations attracting sp

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.Nos. 2523/2016 on the file of JMFC-VIII, Ernakulam are quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.

Ramesh Menon Vs Dhanesh Kumar v. — 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

MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 12TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7312 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2523/2016 of JMFC - VIII, ERNAKULAM (TEMPORARY)

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 6 :-

¶8

1 RAMESH MENON

¶9

THE GENERAL MANAGER, CONCORDE MOTORS (INDIA) LTD., X/256C NETTOOR, MARADU, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CONCORDE MOTORS (INDIA) LTD., X/256C NETTOOR, MARADU, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI. V. KRISHNA MENON

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ACCUSED 2 TO 5 & STATE :-

¶13

1 DHANESH KUMAR V. S/O.VASANTHAKUMAR, PUTHENPURAVEETIL, THUTHIYOOR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2 JIBIN

¶15

STATE HEAD SERVICE, TATA MOTORS LTD., 4TH FLOOR, LIV N TOWER, OPP.GOLD SOUK, N.H.BYE-PASS ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19.

¶16

3 JITHESH CHANDRAN K.

¶17

CUSTOMER RELATIONS MANAGER, CONCORDE MOTORS (INDIA) LTD., X/256C NETTOOR, MARADU, RESIDING AT 43/499, KAVYANJALI, PAVOTHIL ROAD, AYYAPPANKKAVU, KOCHI682018.

¶18

4 KRISHNA CUSTOMER SUPPORT MANAGER, TATA MOTORS.

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 7312 & 7447 of 2017

¶20

¶21

5 THE CEO TATA MOTORS LTD, ONE INDIA BULLS CENTRE, TOWER 2A & B, 2OTH FLOOR 841, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, JUPITER MILLS COMPOUND ELPHINSTONE ROAD (WEST) MUMBAI - 400 013.

¶22

6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶23

BY ADV. SRI. M.V. KISHORE KUMAR SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.09.2018, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NO.7447 OF 2017. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Crl.MC.No. 7312 & 7447 of 2017

¶26

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶30

MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 12TH BHADRA, 1940

¶31

Crl.MC.No. 7447 of 2017

¶32

IN CC 2523/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - VIII, ERNAKULAM (TEMPORARY)

¶33

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 500/2016 of DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM, ERANAKULAM

¶34

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 5 :-

¶35

1 JIBIN STATE HEAD SERVICE, TATA MOTORS LTD,4TH FLOOR, LIV N TOWER, OPP. GOLD SOUK,N.H BYE-PASS ROAD, VYTTILLA , KOCHI.19

¶36

2 THE CEO TATA MOTORS LTD, ONE INDIA BULLS CENTRE,TOWER 2A & B, 20TH FLOOR, 841, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,JUPITER MILLS COMPOUND, ELPHINSTONE ROAD(WEST)MUMBAI.400013.

¶37

BY ADVS. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.J.SURYA SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON

¶38

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT 1,3,4 AND 6 & STATE :

¶39

1 DHANESH KUMAR V S/O VASANTHAKUMAR, PUTHENPURAVEETIL,THUTHIYOOR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.682037.

¶40

2 RAMESH MENON THE GENERAL MANAGER, CONCORDE MOTORS(INDIA) LTD, X/256C NETTOOR , MARADU,ERNAKULAM. 682040.

¶41

3 JITHESH CHANDRAN K CUSTOMER RELATIONS MANAGER,CONCORDE MOTORS

¶42

Crl.MC.No. 7312 & 7447 of 2017

¶43

¶44

(INDIA) LTD,X/256C NETTOOR, MARADU,RESIDING AT 43/499,KAVYANJALI, PAVOTHIL ROAD,AYYAPPANKAVU, KOCHI.682018.

¶45

4 KRISHNA CUSTOMER SUPPORT MANAGER, TATA MOTORS,NOW RESIDING AT TC 21/187, MB NAGAR, SCRA,127, VRINDAVAN LANE, MANNADI BHAGAVATHY NAGAR,KARAMANA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695002.

¶46

5 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CONCORDE MOTORS (INDIA) LTD,X/256C NETTOOR, MARADU, ERNAKULAM.682040.

¶47

6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶48

BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.KISHORE KUMAR SMT.BINI SARAMMA R6 BY SRI SANTHOSH PETER PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶49

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.09.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7312/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

Crl.MC.No. 7312 & 7447 of 2017

¶51

¶52

ORDER

¶53

Petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.7312 of 2017

¶54

are accused 1 and 6, and the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.7447 of 2017 are accused 2 and 5 in C.C.No.2523 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-VIII, Ernakulam. They are alleged to have committed the offences under section 120B, 339, 405, 409, 420, 424 and 503 IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences on a complaint filed by the first respondent.

¶55

2. TATA Motors Limited is a manufacturer of vehicles and Concorde Motors (India) Limited is a dealer of TATA Motors Limited. On 17.07.2015 the first respondent purchased a car manufactured by TATA Motors Limited from the Concorde Motors (India) Limited. It developed some problems. The first respondent reported the matter to the manufacturer as well as the dealer. He handed over the vehicle to the dealer. It returned the car stating that the defect had been rectified. The car again developed

¶56

some problems. So he again handed it over to the

¶57

¶58

Crl.MC.No. 7312 & 7447 of 2017

¶59

dealer. It is alleged that on 03.10.2016 the petitioner went to the first respondent to take delivery of it and then the second accused who is the ‘state head service’ of TATA Motors Limited asked him to wait outside, while the first petitioner was waiting outside the office, the third and fourth accused went to him along with the first accused General Manager of the dealer and the second accused and caught hold of him by his shirt, uttered obscene words, made obscene gestures and intimidated him that "they had directions from the Chief Executive officer of the TATA Motors Limited, who is shown as the fifth accused and from the sixth accused who is shown as the Managing Director of Concorde Motors Limited (Dealer) that he would be liquidated if he made any complaint against the officers of the TATA Motors Limited or Concorde Motors (India) Limited". These are the allegations in this complaint. This is sought to be quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶60

3. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶61

petitioners. Though notice was served the second

¶62

Crl.MC.No. 7312 & 7447 of 2017

¶63

¶64

respondent, he has not entered appearance.

¶65

4. It is seen from the proceedings sheet maintained by the trial court that on 22.12.2016 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under section 120B, 339, 405, 409, 420, 424 and 503 IPC. Sections 339, 405 and 503 do not create any offence.

¶66

5. The fifth and sixth accused are not named persons. They are described as Chief Executive Officers of the TATA Motors Limited and Managing Director of Concorde Motors (India) Limited. It is not known how the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against persons who are not named in the complaint. The second petitioner in Crl.M.C 7312 of 2017 and 7447 of 2017 are the Chief Executive of the TATA Motors Limited and the Managing Director of the Concorde Motors Limited respectively. The proceedings against them are liable to be quashed for these reasons alone.

¶67

6. It is alleged in the complaint that outside the office of the second accused, the first accused along with accused 2 to 4 caught hold of him

¶68

Crl.MC.No. 7312 & 7447 of 2017

¶69

¶70

by his shirt. The complaint does not disclose who actually caught the first respondent by his shirt. There is no allegation as to be identity of the person who did so. In the sworn statement of the complainant recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C he stated that 1^st and 2^nd accused threatened, assaulted and intimidated him that they would liquidate him. This does not find any place in the complaint.

¶71

7. The learned Magistrate did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. It is not known how the facts of the case attract the offences under sections 406 and 424 IPC.

¶72

In the result these Crl.M.Cs are allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.2523 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-VIII, Ernakulam are quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶73

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶74

SMA

¶75

Crl.MC.No. 7312 & 7447 of 2017

¶76

¶77

APPENDIX (CRL.M.C.NO.7312 OF 2017)

¶78

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :-

¶79

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE HISTORY IN RESPECT OF THE COMPLAINANT'S CAR. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-12-2016 SENT BY THE SECOND APPELLANT TO THE COMPLAINANT. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-12-2016 SENT BY THE SECOND APPELLANT TO THE COMPLAINANT. ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-1-2017 SENT BY THE SECOND APPELLANT TO THE COMPLAINANT. ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31-1-2017 SENT BY THE SECOND APPELLANT TO THE COMPLAINANT. ANNEXURE F COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CDRF, ERNAKULAM DATED 5-8-2017 IN C.C.500 OF 2016. ANNEXURE G CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT CC NO.2523/2016 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT VIII, ERNAKULAM (MARADU)

¶80

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :- NIL

¶81

SMA

¶82

Crl.MC.No. 7312 & 7447 of 2017

¶83

¶84

APPENDIX (CRL.M.C.NO.7447 OF 2017)

¶85

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :-

¶86

ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE HISTORY IN RESPECT OF THE COMPLAINANT'S CAR

¶87

ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.12.2016 SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE COMPLAINANT.

¶88

ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.12.2016 SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE COMPLAINANT.

¶89

ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.01.2017 SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE COMPLAINANT.

¶90

ANNEXURE E : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.01.2017 SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE COMPLAINANT.

¶91

ANNEXURE F : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CDRF, ERNAKULAM DATED 05.08.2017 IN C.C.NO.500 OF 2016.

¶92

ANNEXURE G : COPY OF THE PRIVAN COMPLAINT C.C.NO.2523/2016 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VIII, ERNAKULAM (MARADU). ANNEXURE H : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 25.10.2017 IN CRL.M.C.NO.7312/2017.

¶93

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :- NIL

¶94

SMA

Ramesh Menon v. Dhanesh Kumar v.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Menon v. Dhanesh Kumar v.

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

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Amarnath Baiju Vs State of Kerala

Abraham C. Joseph Vs State of Kerala

G.Sreekumari Vs Girijakumari L

G.Sreekumari Vs Prem.J.Das

Dr.C.v.James Vs Mr.Sirosh P.John