Dismissed

Tess Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2022Crl.MC/2538/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging issuance of a bounced cheque under Section 138 NI Act. The Court held that the allegations disclose a prima facie criminal case, precluding quashing, and remanded the matter for expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

Competition petition dismissed; liberty granted to raise contentions before trial court; Magistrate directed to expedite trial within three months.

Tess Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2538 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 1472/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARI

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

TESS THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O MATHEW ANTONY, MOLIPADAVIL HOUSE, KARIKUZHI P.O, NEERETTUPURAM, THALAVADI VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 689 571.

¶9

BY ADVS. R.REJI M.V.THAMBAN THARA THAMBAN B.BIPIN ARUN BOSE SUNEESH KUMAR R.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031. 2 VARGHESE MATHEW, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O MATHEW, NADUVILAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MITHRAKARY P.O, MUTTAR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 595. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH T.JOHN SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Crl.M.C.No.2538 of 2022

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Dated, this the 7^th October, 2022

¶17

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash Annexure-A1 complaint in S.T.No.1472/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankari, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent in this matter.

¶19

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the complaint, it is alleged that the accused herein issued cheque for Rs.9 lakh dated 14.08.2020 to discharge the liability arising out of money handed over to the complainant to the accused. When the cheque

¶20

presented for encashment, the same got dishonoured and, thereafter, when notice was issued demanding the amount covered by the

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.2538 of 2022

¶22

¶23

cheque, no amount paid. Accordingly,

¶24

prosecution was launched alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel

¶26

for the petitioner that Annexure-A1 is a false complaint lodged by the complainant and the cheque involved was not issued by the petitioner for any purpose.

¶27

In this matter, the complainant

¶28

launched prosecution when cheque for Rs.9 lakh dated 14.08.2020 issued by the accused was dishonoured for want of funds, wherein the complainant would allege that the accused

¶29

borrowed Rs.2,50,000/on 06.01.2018;

¶30

Rs.2,00,000/- on 15.01.2018 and Rs.4,50,000/on 29.04.2018 on the assurance of arranging

¶31

employment to the daughter of the complainant in Dubai.

¶32

In the decision reported in [1976 (3) SCC 736], Smt.Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa

¶33

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.2538 of 2022

¶35

Konjalgi , the Apex Court enumerated the list of cases where an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside. The same are as under:

¶36

“(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complainant does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;

¶37

(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

¶38

(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and

¶39

(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.”

¶40

That apart, in the decisions reported in [1988(1) SCC 692], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia

¶41

v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre ; [1992 Supp

¶42

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.2538 of 2022

¶44

(1) SCC 335], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ; [1995 (6) SCC 194], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill ; [1996 (5) SCC 591], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. ; [1996 (8) SCC 164], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla ; [1999 (3) SCC 259], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi ; [2000 (3) SCC 269], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E.Ltd. ; [2000 (4) SCC 168], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar ; [ 2001(8) SCC 645], M.Krishnan v. Vijay Singh ; [2005(1) SCC 122], Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque , the Apex Court summarised the principles while quashing a complaint. The principles are as under:

¶45

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the

¶46

allegations made in the complaint, even if

¶47

they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima

¶48

facie constitute any offence or make out the

¶49

Crl.M.C.No.2538 of 2022

¶50

¶51

case alleged against the accused.

¶52

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining

¶53

the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court, as when the criminal proceeding is

¶54

found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

¶55

(iii) The power to quash shall not,

¶56

however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

¶57

(iv) The complaint is not required to

¶58

verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of

¶59

Crl.M.C.No.2538 of 2022

¶60

¶61

the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

¶62

(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is

¶63

Crl.M.C.No.2538 of 2022

¶64

¶65

not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.

¶66

Thus the law is no more res integra on

¶67

the point that a complaint can be quashed only when it falls under the category of cases as per the principles set out by the Apex Court, extracted herein above.

¶68

Having considered the facts of this case, in view of the settled legal position, it is crystal clear that cheque alleged to be issued by the petitioner to discharge the liability in respect of money alleged to be borrowed by the petitioner, got dishonoured when the same was presented for encashment. Therefore, after following the legal

¶69

formalities, the 2^nd respondent launched

¶70

prosecution. Thus a prima facie case to be tried, is well discernable and such a case

¶71

cannot be quashed by executing power under

¶72

Crl.M.C.No.2538 of 2022

¶73

¶74

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow this petition and this petition stands dismissed, with liberty to petitioner to raise all these contentions before the trial court during trial.

¶75

Since it is the statutory mandate that complaint involving offence under Section 138 of the NI Act to be disposed of within six months, the learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, without fail.

¶76

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.

¶77

¶78

Crl.M.C.No.2538 of 2022

¶79

¶80

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2538/2022

¶81

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶82

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO.1229/2020,
	DATED 10.11.2020, NOW PENDING AS S.T. NO.1472/2020, FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RAMANKARY.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE DISHONORED CHEQUE NO.319796, DATED 14.08.2020 OF THE
	STATE BANK OF INDIA, TOWN BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 23.09.2020.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NO. L6769667 ISSUED ON 02.01.2014 FROM THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, KOCHI.
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT.
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 797/2020 OF EDATHWA POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT.

Tess Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tess Thomas 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

Unnikrishnan Master Vs P.S.Sasikumar

Unnikrishnan Master, Vs P.S. Sasikumar

Unnikrishnan Master Vs P.S.Sasikumar

Claramma Thomas Vs K.M. Thomas

Tess Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Naseema E.M. Vs Muhammed Asharaf