Disposed

Thadevus @ Shaji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2022Crl.MC/1276/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court remitted the issue of material sufficiency to the trial court. The petitioner requested quashing of proceedings for alleged cheating and forgery. The Court held that no plea regarding lack of offence materiality should be raised at this stage and directed the petitioner to seek discharge before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the trial court for discharge.

Thadevus @ Shaji Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1276 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 1814/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶7

CLASS -I, ALUVA

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

THADEVUS @ SHAJI AGED 63 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, KALATHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, DEVASWAM PADAM DESOM, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. , PIN - 683517

¶10

BY ADV ASHIK K.MOHAMED ALI

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR IN CRIME NO. 981/CR/OCW-I/TVPM/12, CBCID OCW-III, SUB UNIT, THRISSUR (THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM)., PIN - 682031

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.M.C.No. 1276 of 2022

¶17

¶18

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J

¶19

…..................................... Crl.M.C.No. 1276 of 2022

¶20

….......................................................... Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2022

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.981/CR/OCWI/TVPM OF 2012 of THE CBCID HQ, Thiruvananthapuram. Which is now pending as C.C.No.1814/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Aluva. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are under Sections 468, 471, 420 and r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused was entrusted with the work of tarring a road by the Alangad Block Panchayat, and one of the stipulations was that, the tar required for the road works have to be obtained from Public Sector Companies. It is alleged that the 1^st accused had conducted the work through the 2^nd accused who is the petitioner herein, a sub contractor. And after completing the work, the 2^nd accused brought 2964 Kgs of tar from an unknown place and certain bills were produced by the accused persons before the Block

¶24

¶25

Crl.M.C.No. 1276 of 2022

¶26

Panchayat indicating the said tar was purchased from HPCL. On perusal of the same, it was known that the bills submitted by the accused persons were fake and hence the complaint was submitted. Annexure 1 is the FIR and Annexure 2 is the Final Report submitted by the police. This Crl.M.C is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 2 as against the petitioner.

¶27

Heard, Sri. Ashik K. Mohammed Ali the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. M.P.Prashanth, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶28

The contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Annexure 2 Final Report submitted by the police does not contain any materials indicating the complicity of the petitioner herein. According to the learned counsel, all the documents executed in connection with the awarding of the work was between the Panchayat and the 1^st accused. The payments were also affected to the 1^st accused by the Panchayat and the relevant bills were submitted in the name of the 1^st accused. It is further contended that, as far as the role of the petitioner is concerned, the only allegation is that he had carried out the work as entrusted by the 1^st accused and

¶29

¶30

Crl.M.C.No. 1276 of 2022

¶31

according to the learned counsel for the petitioner that is not sufficient to attract the offence alleged in the Final Report. On the other hand, the learned Public prosecutor opposes the aforesaid contention.

¶32

After hearing both sides and perusing the records, I am of the view that the aforesaid contention need not be considered at this stage of the proceedings. The specific case of the petitioner is that there are no materials on record to establish the offence alleged against the petitioner who is the 2^nd accused. In my view, the aforesaid contention can be raised by him before the trial court and seek for discharge. Since the petitioner has not availed the aforesaid remedy, it is only proper that, the petitioner be relegated to invoke the same.

¶33

In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to do so. In case any petition is submitted before the trial court, as mentioned above, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed, if charges are already not framed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE

¶36

Dxy

¶37

Crl.M.C.No. 1276 of 2022

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1276/2022

¶40

PETITIONER ANNEXURES AnnexureA1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN 981/CR/OCW-I/TVPM OF 2012 OF THE CBCID HQ, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT. AnnexureA2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO. 1814 OF 2015 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA.

Thadevus @ Shaji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thadevus @ Shaji 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

Rijoy George Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ashraf K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Shareefa.a.v Vs Khadeeja.a.v

Federal Bank Limited Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Godson Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor