Quashed

Maniboy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2021Crl.MC/7/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the prosecution case as no factual situation disclosed an offence. Based on the final report and statements, the court held that no cheating charge was made out and the accused’s licensed activity did not violate money lender or pawnbroker laws. It quashed the pending criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C.No.1415 of 2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam were quashed.

Maniboy Vs State of Kerala — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.7/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 7 OF 2017

¶8

CRIME NO.1276/2014 OF Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1415/2015 OF JUDICIAL

¶10

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMKULAM

¶11

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶12

1 MANIBOY, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.VARU, PUTHOOR HOUSE, KADAVALOOR VILLAGE, KALLUMPURAM DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

2 K.T.SIMON, S/O.THAVUTTY, AGED 73 YEARS, KOLADY HOUSE, PANAKKAL ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

3 JAMES K.I., S/O.IYAAKU, AGED 53 YEARS, KAKKASERRY HOUSE, OPPOSITE BETHANY ENGLISH SCHOOL, KUNNAMKULAM.

BY ADV SRI.RAJIT

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA,

REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

BY SRI.ARAVIND V. MATHEW, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.7/2017

O R D E R

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1415

¶25

of 2015 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, which arises from Crime No.1276 of 2014 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. The aforesaid crime was registered for the offenences punishable under Section 420 IPC and under Sections 3, 4, 17 and 18A of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958.

¶26

The prosecution case is as follows: On 20.05.2014 at 12.15 pm the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam conducted an inspection in the premises of M/s.Chorus Kuries and Loans Private Ltd., to which the petitioners are directors. During the said inspection certain blank cheque leafs and vouchers were seized by the police and Annexure-A FIR was registered against them for the aforesaid offences. After completing the investigation, Annexure-B charge sheet was filed. On the basis of the final report, cognizance was taken by the Judicial First

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.7/2017 3

¶28

Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam. This Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash all further proceedings in the aforesaid calendar case.

¶29

Heard Sri.Arjun, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Aravind V. Mathew, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even if the entire allegations contained in Annexure-B charge sheet are accepted for its face value, no offence is made out. With regard to Section 420 IPC, it is pointed out that, there is absolutely no complaint submitted by any person so as to attract the aforesaid offence. The averments contained in the final report also do not contain any allegation as to the commission of any act of cheating of any person. The only allegation against the petitioners is that, they have collected certain blank cheques, blank stamp papers and also certain gold ornaments which were not returned. However, on going through the statements of

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.7/2017

¶32

¶33

the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it can be seen that none of the witnesses have made any allegation that they were cheated by not returning cheques or gold ornaments. As regards to the cheques, those were stated to have been submitted by the said witnesses as security for the loan transactions, which they have availed. Even though it was stated that the same were not returned, conspicuously, none of them have stated that said cheques were not returned even after a demand for return of the same. In other words the statements of any of the witnesses do not indicate any demand being made by the said witnesses for return of the cheque. Similarly, there is no allegation that the aforesaid cheque leafs or stamp papers were misused by the petitioners. In such circumstances, the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC will not get attracted.

¶34

The other offences alleged are under Sections 3, 4, 17 and 18A of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. Sections 3

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.7/2017

¶36

¶37

and 4 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, deal with licence. In this case, the petitioner has already produced the licence as Annexure-F series, which would indicate that he was authorised to conduct the business of money lending. Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act contemplates for a prosecution if a person is conducting the business of money lending without obtaining a licence or in violation of the conditions of the licence. As the petitioner has already obtained a licence and the activities were being conducted on the basis of such licence, the first limb of Section 17 would not get attracted. The other limb of Section 17 relates to conduct of business in violation of the conditions of licence. However, on going through the allegations contained in Annexure-F and also statements of witnesses, it can be seen that there is absolutely no allegation of any violations are seen mentioned therein. In such circumstances, Section 17 is also not attracted. Remaining offence is under Section 18A of Kerala Money Lenders Act.

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.7/2017

¶39

¶40

As per the aforesaid provision, certain acts of pawnbrokers are made punishable. Pawnbroker is defined under Section 2 (7A), which reads as follows:

¶41

“(7A) “pawnbroker” means a person who carries on the business of taking goods and chattels in pawn for a loan.”

¶42

Going by the averments contained in Annexure-B,

¶43

there is no allegation that the petitioner was carrying out activity of a pawnbroker. Even though some of the witnesses have stated that they have given gold ornaments to the petitioners, the statements of the said witnesses itself would indicate that the same was given as a security for the chitty transaction which were already subscribed by them. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be treated as pawnbroker.

¶44

In the light of the above observations, I am of the view that none of the offences alleged against the petitioners are attracted even if the entire allegations in Annexure-B final report are accepted. Accordingly, I allow

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.7/2017

¶46

¶47

this Crl.M.C by quashing all further proceedings in C.C.No.1415 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, which arises from Crime No.1276 of 2014 of Kunnamkulam Police Station.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

DG/7.12.21

Crl.M.C.No.7/2017

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7/2017

¶55

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶56

ANNX.A	TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R REGISTERED BY THE KUNNAMKULAM POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
ANNX.B	TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF WITNESSES IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR
ANNX.C	TRUE COPY OF THE MONEY LENDING LICENSE ISSUED BY THE INSPECTING ASSISTING COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES DATED 15.12.2016 TO THE PETITIONERS
ANNX.D	TRUE COPY OF THE THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES IN RESPECT OF CHORUS KURIES AND LOANS PRIVATE LIMITED

Maniboy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniboy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rasheed P.S

Sunil James Vs State of Kerala

Mr.Vinod Mathew Jacob Vs K.I.John

Yahiya a. K. Vs State of Kerala

Udayakumar Vs State of Kerala