In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against bank officials. The court held that the dispute was civil and the complainant lacked locus standi as he merely had an authorization letter, not a power of attorney to represent the auction winner.
This Crl.M.C. is allowed and the criminal proceedings are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.1715 OF 2020(D)
CRIME NO.41/2018 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODANAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.NAVAS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.SMT.M.N.MAYA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.1715 OF 2020(D) 2
ORDER
The defacto complainant is one Aboobacker. It
is at his instance, a crime was registered alleging offence under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 34 IPC against the petitioner, the Regional Manager and Branch Manager of Kerala Gramin Bank,
Puzhakkattiri.
authorization letter given by the said Ashraff to the defacto complainant Aboobacker only to participate in auction. It will not constitute a power of attorney for the purpose of initiating criminal proceedings against the accused. Further
Crl.MC.No.1715 OF 2020(D) 3
what is involved is only a civil dispute. The defacto complainant has no locus standi to represent the said Ashraff and no document worth the name produced in that behalf. The proceedings initiated against the branch manager, the
petitioner herein, hence liable to be quashed. I do so by allowing the Crl.M.C.
Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
Crl.MC.No.1715 OF 2020(D) 4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| ANNEXURE A1 | TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE KOLATHUR POLICE UNDER CRIME NO.41 DATED 03.03.2018. |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE A2 | TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION DATED 02.03.2018. |
| ANNEXURE A3 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE JFCM COURT PERINTHALMANNA. |
| ANNEXURE A4 | TRUE COPY OF SALE NOTICE DATED 21.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE BANK. |
| ANNEXURE A5 | TRUE COPY OF THE E.C.NO.3561/2015 DATED 13.08.2015 OF SRO MAKKARAPARAMBA. |
| ANNEXURE A6 | TRUE COPY OF THE BID SUBMITTED BY SRI.ASHRAFF. |
| ANNEXURE A7 | TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER DATED 24.08.2015 ISSUED BY ASHRAFF AUTHORIZING THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO ATTEND THE AUCTION PROCEEDINGS ON HIS BEHALF. |
| ANNEXURE A8 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE BANK TO ASHRAFF INFORMING HIM THAT HE IS THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER. |
| ANNEXURE A9 | LETTER DATED 13.12.2016 INTIMATING CONFIRMATION OF SALE TO ASHRAFF. |
| ANNEXURE A10 | TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE DATED 28.12.2016. |
| ANNEXURE A11 | TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO.326/17 DATED 02.02.2017. |
| ANNEXURE A12 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.03.2017 TO THE SUB REGISTRAR MAKKARAPARAMBA. |
| ANNEXURE A13 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.03.2017 RECEIVED FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR TO THE BANK. |
Crl.MC.No.1715 OF 2020(D) 5
ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) 14696/2019. ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.06.2019 SENT BY THE BANK TO SRI.ASHRAFF. ANNEXURE A16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.07.2019 SENT BY BANK TO THE SUB REGISTRAR MAKKARAPARAMBA. ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE 24.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOLATHUR TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against bank officials based on an unauthorized auction bid are maintainable in view of the dispute being essentially civil in nature.
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the complaint as only an authorization letter was produced instead of a power of attorney.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI.K.V.SHAJI
SRI.BALAKRISHNAN K.M.
SMT.BETTY P.JOHN
STATE
SRI.ABOOBACKER KUTHRADAN ALIAS ABOO
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
