Dismissed

Raju Paul v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC1 Mar 2021Crl.MC/1343/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.MC.No.1343 OF 2014(B), involving a falsifying complaint for cheating and criminal breach of trust, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition. The court held that the receipt of funds from students under cover is not in dispute, leaving evidentiary questions for trial, and refused interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as the receipt of amounts is undisputed and matters of evidence require trial.

Raju Paul Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1343 OF 2014(B)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 64/2011 OF CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO.3188/2010 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station , Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

RAJU PAUL AGED 45, S/O.POULOSE, THIRUTHANATHIL HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SHRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2 THOMAS C.KONDODI S/O.K.M.CHANDI, M/S.HIGH SPEED INTERNATIONAL, AYISHA COMPLEX, ST.ALBERT'S LANE, BANARJEE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT KONDODIKKAL HOUSE, ERAVINALLOOR KARA, PUTHUPALLI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK.

¶14

R1 BY ADV.SRI.E.C. BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. K.C SUDHEER

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.MC.No.1343 OF 2014(B)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

By offering admission in a foreign

¶20

institution abroad, some huge amount was received from six students. Subsequently, another sum was also received under that guise and thereby, obtained huge amount by playing deception on six students, including the defacto complainant, which has resulted in the registration of a crime for the offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC on a reference of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Nothing was brought to the notice of this Court so as to have an interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The receipt of amount on various occasions is

¶21

not in dispute. Then it is a matter of evidence. Hence the Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶24

SPV

¶25

Crl.MC.No.1343 OF 2014(B)

¶26

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶29

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
	4.11.2010 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME 3188/2010 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.64/11 OF HON'BLE CJM COURT ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161 OF CR.PC.
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL STATEMENT DATED 9.2.11 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 6.11.2010 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A7(A)	TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN C.C.150/2011 OF HON'BLE JFCM COURT ALUVA.
ANNEXURE A7(B)	TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN C.C.551/2011 OF HON'BLE JFCM COURT ALUVA.
ANNEXURE A7(C)	TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN C.C.780/2011 OF HON'BLE JFCM COURT ALUVA.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶31

//TRUE COPY//

¶32

PA TO JUDGE

Raju Paul v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Paul v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Sadique Ali Vs State of Kerala

U.P.Sreedharan Nair Vs Raju

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Lawrance @ Roy Vs State of Kerala

Abdu Rahiman @ Kunjappu Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Abdul Karim Faizal Vs the State of Kerala