The Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR. It held that prima facie, the alleged acts satisfy the ingredients of the offence, and no inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is warranted to quash the criminal proceeding. The Court refused to exhaust the inherent jurisdiction.
The petition seeking quashing of FIR is dismissed.
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 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.4255 OF 2020(B)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 395/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PONNANI
CRIME NO.254/2017 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1:
M.P.RAMANKUTTY, AGED 80 YEARS S/O. KESAVAN NAMBIAR, NALISSERI PATTATHU HOUSE, VADAKKUMMURI P.O, PERINGOTTUKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 570
BY ADVS. SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS SMT.E.U.DHANYA SMT.SEEMA P.P.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031
2 C.P. KESAVAN NAMBEESAN, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O. CHEMPOZHEY PARAMESWARAN NAMBEESAN, 12/4920, ASHRIWAD, SERIN GARDENS, U.C. COLLEGE P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683102.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUSHANTH.J. R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SIVAJI R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.DIVAKARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.SRI.E.C.BINEESH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.4255 OF 2020(B) 2
ORDER
The accused came up to quash the FIR registered on the allegation of malpractice committed by the accused in transferring the interest of the defacto complainant over the management of a school in favour of a third person, under the guise of a power of attorney (R2(b)) alleged to have been executed by the defacto complainant. A mere perusal of the power of attorney would show that it is only a special power of attorney given only for the purpose of managing the affairs of the school. No right of transfer or alienation given
under the power of attorney. This would show what is behind it. The alleged act of the accused would prima facie satisfy the ingredient which would constitute the offence alleged. Hence, there is no ground for exhausting the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
Crl.MC.No.4255 OF 2020(B) 3
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO. 254/2017 DATED 24.10.2017 OF ALONG WITH COMPLAINT OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 18.05.2020 IN C.C. NO. 395/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PONNANI.
ANNEXURE A3 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2014 OF AEO, EDAPPAL.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO. 47/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPYOF THE WILL DATED 09.10.2001 ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 26.12.1998 ISSUED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
/ /TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the allegations amount to an offence or are merely a civil dispute regarding school management.
M.P. RAMANKUTTY
STATE OF KERALA
C.P. KESAVAN NAMBEESAN
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
