Dismissed

K.G.Sathi Ratnam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Nov 2021Crl.MC/2209/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC involving allegations of cheating. The court held that the petitioners' defenses were factual questions unfit for this jurisdiction and should be determined during trial.

What did the court decide?

Discountinued; no application for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC. Liberty given to apply for discharge; direction to Magistrate to consider application under Section 205 Cr.PC.

K.G.Sathi Ratnam Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶4

CRL.MC NO. 2209 OF 2020

¶5

[AGAINST C.C.No.346/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR]

¶6

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶7

K.G.SATHI RATNAM AGED 68 YEARS W/O.DR.K.V.DEVADAS, VYSAKHAM, M.O.ROAD,KUNNAMKULAM.P.O., THRISSUR-680503.

¶8

BY ADVS. A.RAJASIMHAN SMT.P.USHAKUMARI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶11

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHERPU POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680561.

¶12

3 SANITHA, W/O.CHANDRAN, ERUMATHURUTHI VEEDU, KARAYAMUTTOM, VALAPPAD.P.O., THRISSUR-686567.

¶13

R3 BY ADV SRI.K.SURESH BABU (KANDENGHAT)

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

R1 AND R2 BY PP-SRI.ARAVIND V. MATHEW

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.11.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2934/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC Nos.2209 & 2934 of 2020 2

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶21

TUESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶22

CRL.MC NO. 2934 OF 2020

¶23

[AGAINST C.C.No.346/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF

¶24

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR]

¶25

PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2:

¶26

K.M.RADHAKRISHNAN,AGED 67 YEARS S/O.K.V. MADHAVAN, KANNOLI HOUSE, KURUMPILAVU P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 564.

¶27

BY ADVS. T.T.MUHAMOOD SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR

¶28

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶29

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶30

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,CHERPU POLICE STATION( IN CR. 348/18), CHERPU, THRISSUR 680 561.

¶31

3 SANITHA M.S, W/O. CHANDRAN E.P. ERUMATHURUTHI VEEDU, KARAYAMUTTOM, VALAPPAD P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 567.

¶32

R3 BY ADV K.SURESH BABU (KANDENGHAT)

¶33

R1 AND R2 BY SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHNAN, PP

¶34

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.11.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2209/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

Crl.MC Nos.2209 & 2934 of 2020 3

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

The petitioners in both the above Crl.MCs. are

¶38

accused numbers 1 and 2 and C.C.No.346/2019 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur. The aforesaid case arises from Annexure-A2 F.I.R in Crime No 348/2018 of Cherupu Police Station, which in turn was registered on a private complaint submitted by the 3^rd respondent herein.

¶39

After completing the investigation, the Police had filed Annexure-A3 final report and

¶40

cognizance thereon was taken by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Thrissur as

¶41

C.C.No.2692/2018. Summons were issued to the

¶42

accused persons. Later, the case was made over to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,

¶43

Thrissur where the case was re-numbered as C.C.No.346/2019.

¶44

Crl.MC Nos.2209 & 2934 of 2020 4

¶45

The prosecution case is as follows:

¶46

The accused persons are the responsible persons

¶47

of the management of Swamy Bodananda High School, Kurumbilavu. On 17.3.2008, the mother of the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.2209/2020, (the

¶48

petitioner hereinafter referred to as ‘1^st accused’)

¶49

and the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2939/2020

¶50

(hereinafter referred to as ‘2^nd accused’) had collected an amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the

¶51

complainant by promising to give him FTM permanent post in the school. After collecting the said

¶52

amount, she was made to work till 8.5.2015 and

¶53

later, the aforesaid amount was returned by them

¶54

informing that no such appointment can be given to

¶55

her. Thereafter, the petitioners have forcibly obtained the signature of the 3^rd respondent in a

¶56

stamp paper after compelling her to write therein

¶57

to the effect that she does not want the

¶58

employment. Thereafter, the aforesaid post was

¶59

Crl.MC Nos.2209 & 2934 of 2020 5

¶60

filled up by appointing another person after collecting more amounts. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, it was contended that the

¶61

petitioners have committed the offence under Section 420 r/w. Section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal code.

¶62

The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2209/2020 who

¶63

was the 1^st accused contended that she was not the Manager of the school at the relevant time when the amount was collected and the same was allegedly returned to the 3^rd respondent. It was pointed out that even going by the averments contained in

¶64

Annexure-A1 complaint submitted by the 3^rd respondent, it can be seen that, at the time when the amount was collected, the petitioner’s mother

¶65

was the manager, who is no more at the moment. It

¶66

was also contended that, even at the time when the

¶67

amounts were allegedly returned to the 3^rd

¶68

respondent, the petitioner’s mother was not the

¶69

Crl.MC Nos.2209 & 2934 of 2020 6

¶70

manager of the said school and hence under no circumstances, it can be held that, the 1^st accused is liable to be implicated in the said proceedings. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2934/2020 also raised the contention that no offence is made out against him as well, as he was not the manager of the school and was not a competent person to give appointment to the 3^rd respondent. He denies the allegation of collecting any amount from the 3^rd respondent. In such circumstances, both the above accused persons are seeking to invoke powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) and to quash the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A3 final report.

¶71

Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner in Crl.MC No.2209/2020 and Crl.MC No.2934/2020, the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2, and learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶72

Crl.MC Nos.2209 & 2934 of 2020 7

¶73

The contention put forward by the learned

¶74

counsel for the accused is to the effect that, the entire proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1 to AIII

¶75

are clear abuse of process of law and no offence is attracted against them. The aforesaid contention is

¶76

mainly based on the factual situation that they were not holding any responsible position so as to give any appointment to the 3^rd respondent and to collect any amount for the same. The 1^st accused placed reliance upon Annexures-AIV and AV which would indicate that the 1^st accused acted as the

¶77

Manager at different point of time, but she was not

¶78

holding any responsible post at the time when the

¶79

transactions which are forming part of the allegation contained in Annexure-AIII have

¶80

occurred. However, I am of the view that, the

¶81

aforesaid contentions are basically questions of

¶82

fact. The settled position of law in this regard is

¶83

that, the invocation of powers of this Court under

¶84

Crl.MC Nos.2209 & 2934 of 2020 8

¶85

Section 482 Cr.PC has to be invoked only in

¶86

exceptional circumstances and sparingly. The powers

¶87

of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC can be

¶88

invoked only if it is shown that even if the entire allegations contained in the final report are

¶89

accepted on its face value, no offence is attracted. In this case, the contentions put forward by the petitioners are based on certain factual aspects and based on certain documents which do not form part of the records of the criminal case. I am of the view that the veracity as well as the relevance of the said documents can be considered only during the course of trial and

¶90

the appreciation thereof cannot be made in a

¶91

proceedings of this nature.

¶92

In such circumstances, I am of the view that no case for invoking the powers of this Court under

¶93

Section 482 Cr.PC is made out in the light of the

¶94

facts and circumstances of this case. In such

¶95

Crl.MC Nos.2209 & 2934 of 2020 9

¶96

circumstances, these Crl.M.Cs. are to be dismissed by leaving open all contentions put forward by the petitioners herein. The petitioners shall be at liberty to invoke their remedies to seek for discharge before the trial court if they are

¶97

advised so and without prejudice that rights, this

¶98

Crl.MCs. are dismissed. However, it is made clear that, the findings and the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of examining the entertainability of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC and the trial court shall consider all the contentions of the petitioners untrammeled by any of the observations contained herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that they may be given an opportunity to submit an application for exemption from personal appearance before the trial court under Section 205 of Cr.PC. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that if any such application

¶99

Crl.MC Nos.2209 & 2934 of 2020 10

¶100

is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law taking into account the advanced age of the petitioners and also the other relevant

¶101

circumstances.

¶102

Sd/-

¶103

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶104

pkk

¶105

Crl.MC Nos.2209 & 2934 of 2020 11

¶106

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2934/2020

¶107

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶108

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 348/2018 OF CHERPU POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A1(A) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN THIS CASE BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE IN CHERPU. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER APPOINTING THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF LR. DATED 03.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF RELINQUISHMENT LETTER DATED 09.05.2017. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER DATED 02.05.2017.

¶109

Crl.MC Nos.2209 & 2934 of 2020 12

¶110

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2209/2020

¶111

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶112

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO.2692/2018 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.348/2018 OF CHERPU POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN FIR NO.348/2018 OF CHERPU POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B5/7005/2013/KDS DATED 30.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B5-4497/2017/KDS DATED 29.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 17.3.2008.

¶113

// TRUE COPY//

¶114

Sd/-

¶115

P.S. TO JUDGE

K.G.Sathi Ratnam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Sathi Ratnam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shuhaib P. @ Mandan Shuhaib, Vs State of Kerala

Saji K. Babu Vs Shaheer Ali A.K

Rajesh K Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited

K.M.Radhakrishnan, Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Vs Anayara Shaji

Ajaykumar Vs State of Kerala