Allowed

Mohanan K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6941/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a husband and wife accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court held that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. Applicants were released on bail subject to cooperate with investigation and not influence witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicants granted bail to appear for interrogation; surrendered on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties.

Mohanan K Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6941 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.774/2019 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

PETITIONERs:

1 MOHANAN K

AGED 62 YEARS

S/O.KUNJUPILLAI, RESIDING AT KANNITTA SREEBHAVANAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691583

¶11

2 LALITHA M AGED 60 YEARS

¶12

W/O.MOHANAN K, RESIDING AT KANNITTA SREEBHAVANAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691583

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN PIN-682031(SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT)

¶17

2 SIVAPRASAD, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, UDAYA MANDIRAM, VELLITHURATHU, KOLLAM

¶18

SRI. REMESH CHAND,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 R2 BY ADV.ARUN BABU

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

B.Appl. No.6941 of 2019 2

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

The applicants herein are man and wife respectively and they have been arrayed as the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.774 of 2019 of the Chavara Police Station registered under Section 406, 420, 380 and 427 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶24

The aforesaid crime was registered based on a complaint lodged by the additional second respondent before the learned Magistrate which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC.

¶25

According to the de facto complainant, he was the president of the Mineral Coast Rotary Club, Chavara during the period 2016-17. The 1^st applicant was a member of the said club and he was the Secretary of the Club for a brief period. It is alleged that the club members formed a Trust by name ‘Coastal Waves’ for the purpose of carrying out the construction of a club building. The 1^st applicant is alleged to have offered to assign property having an extent of 12.5 cents owned by him for a total consideration of Rs.12.5 lakhs. In terms of the oral understanding, substantial amounts were transferred to the account of the applicant by the club. Based on the assurance given by the 1^st applicant, the club members renovated the building by spending a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs. It is further alleged that the applicants assured to execute and register the sale deed after the marriage of their daughter. However, with intent to deceive the informant and other club members, they refused to register the sale deed after obtaining substantial payments. Later, suppressing all facts, the 1^st applicant filed a civil suit

¶26

B.Appl. No.6941 of 2019 3

¶27

and obtained an order of injunction. It is further alleged that in the cover of the injunction order, the applicants trespassed into the premises and committed theft of furniture, electrical fittings, air conditioners etc.

¶28

Sri. Jaju Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants as instructed by Sri.Brijesh Mohan, the learned counsel, submitted that there is no truth in the allegations levelled against the applicants. He denied that there was an agreement for sale between the parties. He also denied that the applicants had received any amount by way of advance. According to the learned counsel, when the relationship between the parties was cordial, the club members were permitted to use the premises belonging to the applicants for the purpose of club activities. However, when the club members used the premises for unsavory activities, the applicants revoked the permission. However, when the club members persisted

¶29

with the activities, the 1^st applicant approached the jurisdictional civil court and obtained Annexure-A4 order of injunction. The Munsiff Court, after evaluating the records, came to the conclusion that there was no written agreement for sale and even if there is an agreement, the office bearers had to approach the civil court seeking specific performance holding so, injunction was granted in favour of the 1^st applicant by order dated 11.1.2019. Much later, in the month of July, 2019, Annexure-A6 complaint was lodged before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chavara, leveling false allegations to cause hardship to the applicants. He would further contend that an earlier complaint was lodged on identical allegations and it was withdrawn by Annexure-A8 order dated 6.7.2019. He would also urge that this

¶30

B.Appl. No.6941 of 2019 4

¶31

Court by Annexure-A5 order had granted an order of stay in favour of the applicants and their daughter, who has been arrayed as the 3^rd accused.

¶32

Shri. Ramesh Chand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that substantial amounts were received from the informant by the applicants on condition that the property would be assigned.

¶33

Sri.Arun Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent, strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that huge sumsof money were transferred to the account of the 1^st applicant believing his words that the property would be assigned. He would point out that the applicants had committed theft of valuable movables, after filing the civil suit for injunction.

¶34

I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced and have gone

¶35

through the records. From the submissions it appears that the dispute between the parties revolves around an item of property. According to the de facto complainant, the applicants agreed to assign the same and by inducing the informant and others, managed to obtain huge sums of money. The 1^st applicant on the other hand denies the entire transaction and it is contended that the amounts were transferred as consideration for using his premises for the activities of the club. As rightly held by the civil court, the dispute appears to be civil in nature and it is open to the 2^nd respondent to approach the civil court and sue for specific performance. The property which is the subject matter of the dispute stands in the name of the 1^st applicant and he is entitled to hold on to the same. Furthermore, it

¶36

B.Appl. No.6941 of 2019 5

¶37

appears that the 1^st applicant has already approached the civil court and he has obtained an order in his favour. Having considered all the relevant facts, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is required for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶38

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶39

i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶40

ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶41

iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶42

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

pkk

Mohanan K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan K 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

Ajith Thomson, Vs State of Kerala

Deepa Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh C. M. Vs State of Kerala

Sreelesh Vs the State of Kerala

Greesh P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Aslam Vs State of Kerala