The Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition to quash a private complaint alleging forgery and cheating, holding the complaint to be mischievous and an abuse of court process because the Magistrate failed to satisfy the ingredients of the offence.
The complaint and further proceedings were quashed accordingly.
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
FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.3267 OF 2016
CC 757/2015 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, ADVOCATE, S/o SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, AGED 40 YEARS, CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, ULLOOR GARDEN, 142, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 SURESH KUMAR C., S/o ACHUTHAN, SILPA BHADRA IRINGALOOR, G.A.COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE-673013.
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.B. UDAYAKUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.11.2020. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.3267 of 2016
2
ORDER
The sole accused came up to quash a private complaint alleging the offence under Sections 465 and 471 IPC on the ground that he was engaged by the first respondent/defacto complainant to prefer an appeal in his service matter. But the appeal preferred was subsequently dismissed for default. Later on it was restored, appeal was allowed. Consequently the first respondent was reinstated. In the meanwhile, a complaint was filed alleging the offence under Sections 465 and 471 wherein cognizance was taken by the Magistrate without satisfying the ingredients which would constitute the offence under Sections 465 and 471 IPC. The complaint itself is mischievous and an abuse of the process of court. Hence the complaint and further proceedings are quashed.
Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
DMR/-
JUDGE
Crl.M.C.No.3267 of 2016
3
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT, DATD 25-7-14, FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CW2. ANNEXURE D CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CW3. ANNEXURE E CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER, DATED 4-5-2015 IN CMP NO. 6201/14 ISSUED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash a private complaint alleging forgery since it is mischievous and an abuse of court process.
Whether the Magistrate satisfied the ingredients of the offence under Sections 465 and 471 IPC.
Whether the quashing is warranted in the given circumstances.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
SURESH KUMAR C.
STATE OF KERALA
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
