Allowed

M.R. Salim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Dec 2018Crl.MC/934/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl. M.C. No. 934 of 2018. The High Court at Ernakulam quashed criminal proceedings against a practicing advocate petitioner for offences under sections 120B and 420 IPC. The Court held that even if the petitioner issued a demand notice based on false entries in a cheque, it would not attract any offence, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No. 697 of 2017 of Kayamkulam Police Station are quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.

M.R. Salim Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | 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 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 934 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 697/2017 OF Kayamkulam Police Station , Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

M.R. SALIM

¶9

S/O RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 43 YEARS,THRIPTHY, CHIRAKKADAVOM MURI,KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DIST-690502

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.C.D.ANIL SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31

¶13

2 GEETHA W/O. BALUKUTTAN PILLAI,AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT BALU BHAVANAM,KATTANAM MURI, KATTANAM VILLAGE,KATTANAM.P.O., MAVELIKARA,ALAPPUZHA DIST690503

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN

¶15

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK SR PP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 934 of 2018 2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime

¶21

No.697 of 2017 of Kayamkulam Police Station

¶22

registered for the offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC. The allegation against the first accused is

¶23

that he made false entries in a signed blank cheque

¶24

informant's husband had issued as a security for a

¶25

loan transaction and presented it in bank. The

¶26

allegation against the petitioner, who is a practising advocate is that he issued notice demanding the amount. The proceedings are sought to

¶27

be quashed on the ground that the facts of the case do not indicate commission of any offence by the petitioner.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶29

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The petitioner is a practsing lawyer.

¶31

Admittedly, he issued a notice to the first informant

¶32

Crl.MC.No. 934 of 2018 3

¶33

demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque in which the entries were made by the co-accused without the knowledge or authority of the person who issued the cheque. Even if it is assumed that all these allegations are true, it will not attract any offence so far as the petitioner is concerned. The proceedings as against him are liable to be quashed.

¶34

In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.697 of 2017 of Kayamkulam

¶35

Police Station are quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶38

¶39

Crl.MC.No. 934 of 2018 4

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

ANNEXURE A1 THE ATTESTED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION CRIME NO.697/2017

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶44

// TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE

M.R. Salim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R. Salim 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

Valsan Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh Vs State of Kerala

Shamseer Vs State of Kerala

Jaleel Aringan Vs State of Kerala

Kurian Vs State of Kerala

Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala