The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings. The Court held that the non-return of deposits due to the firm's dissolution prima facie indicated cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420, 120B, and 149 IPC, offering no sufficient reason to quash.
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 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.6786 OF 2014 G)
C.C 2300/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, PUNALUR
CRIME NO.1355/2012 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 & 7:
1 P.T.ROY BABU, AGED 56 YEARS, S/o LATE P.O.THOMAS VAIDHYAN, RESIDING AT JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, ARAMPUNNA, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.
2 P.T. PRAKASH BABU, AGED 54 YEARS, S/o LATE P.O.THOMAS VAIDHYAN, RESIDING AT JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, ARAMPUNNA, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.
3 P.T. JOE BABU, AGED 52 YEARS, S/o LATE P.O.THOMAS VAIDHYAN, RESIDING AT JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, ARAMPUNNA, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.
4 ANEENA CHANDRABABU, AGED 49 YEARS, W/o P.T.CHANDRA BABU, RESIDING AT JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, ARAMPUNNA, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.V.SREEJA SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR
Crl.M.C.No.6786 of 2014
2
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
| 1 | STATE OF KERALA, |
|---|---|
| REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, | |
| HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. | |
| 2 | KUNJAMMA JOHN, |
| W/o LATE C.K.JOHN, | |
| VETTITHITTA KIZHAKKEVEEDU, | |
| PIRAVANTHOOR P.O,-689 696, | |
| PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT |
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.11.2020. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.6786 of 2014
3
ORDER
Deposits were received by the accused from various persons including the defacto complainant. It was not returned on the reason that the firm in which deposits were received was subsequently dissolved. This would prima facie show the alleged commission of offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy. Final report was submitted for the offence under Sections 120B, 420 and 149 IPC. No sufficient reason available to exhaust the
remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
DMR/-
Crl.M.C.No.6786 of 2014
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
| ANNEXURE A1 | TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME No. 1355 OF 2012 DATED 17-09-2012 OF THE PUNALUR POLICE STATION |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE A2 | TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1355 OF 2012 DATED 17-09-2012 |
| ANNEXURE A3 | TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 01-05-1988 |
| ANNEXURE A4 | TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF RECONSTITUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP DATED 01-04-2000 |
| ANNEXURE A5 | TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.270 OF 1995 |
| ANNEXURE A6 | TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT JUDGMENT DATED 17-01-2009 IN OS NO.270 OF 1995 |
| ANNEXURE A7 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-01-2010 IN CRL.MC NO.3466 OF 2009 |
| ANNEXURE A8 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-11-2013 IN CRL.MC NO.1721 OF 2010 |
| ANNEXURE A9 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01-08-2013 IN CRL.MC NO.1836 OF 2013 |
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings
Whether the non-return of deposits due to dissolution of a firm prima facie indicates an offence under Sections 420 and 120B IPC
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.T.ROY BABU, P.T. PRAKASH BABU, P.T. JOE BABU, ANEENA CHANDRABABU, P.T. USHAKUMARY
STATE OF KERALA
KUNJAMMA JOHN
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
