Allowed

M.P. Balakrishnan v. Raveena Mahesh

Kerala HC14 Oct 2022Crl.MC/3583/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Order addressed challenges to Magistrate orders in a cheque dishonour case. The High Court allowed petitions to reopen evidence, directing the trial to ascertain the complainant's stand on incriminating documents before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Orders dismissing petitions to reopen evidence and summon witnesses were set aside; petitioner allowed to explain documents; direction to complete trial.

M.P. Balakrishnan Vs Raveena Mahesh — 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 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 22ND ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3583 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 31.3.2022 IN CMP NOS.20/2022 (ANNEXURE-
7)21/2022 (ANNEXURE-10), 22/2022 (ANNEXURE 13) AND 23/2022
(ANNEXURE-16) IN S.T.C.NO.73/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶7

CLASS -IV, KANNUR

¶8

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

M.P. BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 60 YEARS
SON OF KUNHAPPA, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. NARATH,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670562
BY ADV K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶11

1RAVEENA MAHESH,
AGED 44 YEARS
WIFE OF MAHESH KUMAR, LICENSEE, RAVEENA FUELS
KOLLARATHIKKAL, KATTAMPALLY P.O., CHIRAKKAL,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670008

¶12

2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
R1 BY ADV.SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
R2 BY SR.PP-SRI.T.R.RENJITH

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CRL.MC NO. 3583 OF 20222

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This is a petition filed by the complainant in S.T.No.73/2018, pending before

¶17

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.IV, Kannur, challenging Annexure A7 (order in CMP No.20/2022 dated 31.3.2022) Annexure A10 (order in CMP No.21/2022 dated 31.3.2022), Annexure A13 (order in CMP No.22/2022 dated 31.3.2022) and Annexure A16 (order in CMP No.23/2022 dated 31.3.2022)

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent (accused in the above case) and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that consequent on dishonour of a cheque for Rs.12,50,000/-, issued by the accused after issuing legal notice as per the statutory mandate, complaint was lodged and the court below took cognizance and proceeded with trial. Thereafter, complainant given evidence and the case reached the stage of defence evidence. At this stage, on the application of the accused herein, the trial court summoned the Station House Officer, Valapattanam police station (during 2017) as DW1 and Exts.D1 to D6 were

¶20

CRL.MC NO. 3583 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

tendered in evidence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of DW1 or Exts.D1 to D6 have no relevance in this matter, since in the reply notice as Annexure A2, the accused admitted that she had received Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant by 3 instaments viz., Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- & Rs.2,00,000 and the said amount was repaid at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per week and Rs.25,000/- and the last instalment by pay, is Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the plea of discharge has been raised by the accused.

¶23

Though in the notice, plea of discharge could be seen, I am not inclined to comment on the same, because the matter has been pending before the trial court, for a decision. However, the grievance that has been advanced by the petitioner is that, since Exts.D1 to D6 are documents implicating the complainant in a crime, (The Kerala Money Lenders Act, (Kubera)) and therefore, it is necessary in the interest of justice and provide an opportunity to the petitioner/complainant to be examined further to deny the allegations in the above documents, which is detrimental as far as the petitioner/complainant is concerned.

¶24

Whereas, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the petitioner filed the above petitions and Annexure A16 order has been passed in a petition, wherein the petitioner sought to get expert opinion in the matter of Ext.D3 search list, where DW1 given evidence that the daughter-in-law

¶25

CRL.MC NO. 3583 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

also put signature at the time of search. According to the learned counsel for the

¶28

first respondent, such an exercise is not warranted in this case, involving summons trial to decide the question as to whether the accused committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the petition. He also submitted that since the entire evidence closed, reopening of evidence and the prayer to examine the complainant again are unwarranted and therefore, the court below rightly dismissed other petitions also.

¶29

I have perused the orders impugned. As per order in CMP. No.20/2022, the prayer to re-open the evidence was dismissed. As per order in CMP.No.21/2022, the prayer was to call for a complaint filed by the petitioner before the Dy.S.P, Kannur, to prove that the complainant earlier filed a complaint alleging cheating by the respondent was dismissed. Annexure A13 order was passed in CMP No.22/2022. The said petition was filed to call for a report filed by the C.I. of Police, Valapattanam in Crl.M.C.No.1229/2017 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery when anticipatory bail was moved stating that there was no crime registered against the petitioner.

¶30

Coming to Annexure A16, I am of the view that there is no necessity to

¶31

send Ext.D3 for expert opinion in this case and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed as per Annexure A16. However, it is relevant to

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 3583 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

note that since the accused adduced evidence as DW1 and produced Exts.D1 to D6, an opportunity shall be given to the complainant to explain his stand in relation

¶35

to the said documents, otherwise the same would cause serious prejudice to him. Therefore, while confirming Annexure A16 order, all other orders passed as per Annexures A7, A10 and A13 stand set aside and the said petitions stand allowed and the Magistrate Court is directed to proceed further to get back the documents and complete the trial in accordance with law, at the earliest. However, it is made clear that while re-opening the evidence, the complainant can examine the daughter-in-law also to give evidence, in so far as the signature in Ext.D3 is concerned, which was allegedly put by her.

¶36

The Crl.M.C. stands disposed of as indicated above.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN

JUDGE

CRL.MC NO. 3583 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3583/2022

¶44

`PETITIONER’S ANN`	`EXURES`
`ANNEXURE1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.8.2017` `CAUSED TO ISSUE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT/ACCUSED.`
`ANNEXURE2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 11/9/2017` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ACCUSED TO THE` `PETITIONER.`
`ANNEXURE3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN STC NO. 73/2018` `FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL` `FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV, KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF INSPECTOR OF` `POLICE, VALAPATTANAM IN STC NO. 73/2018 OF` `JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV,` `KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE5`	`TRUE COPY OF CMP NO. 20/22 IN STC NO. 73/2018` `FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL` `FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV, KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CMP NO. 20/22 IN STC` `NO. 73/2018 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS` `MAGISTRATE COURT IV, KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE7`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 31/3/2022 IN` `CMP NO. 20/2022 IN STC NO. 73/2018 OF` `JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV,` `KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE8`	`TRUE COPY OF CMP NO. 21/22 IN STC NO. 73/2018` `FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL` `FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV, KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CMP NO. 21/22 IN STC` `NO. 73/2018 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS` `MAGISTRATE COURT IV, KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE10`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 31/3/2022 IN` `CMP NO. 21/2022 IN STC NO. 73/2018 OF` `JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV,` `KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE11`	`TRUE COPY OF CMP NO. 22/2022 IN STC NO.` `73/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV,` `KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CMP NO. 22/2022 IN STC` `NO. 73/2018 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS` `MAGISTRATE COURT IV, KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE13`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 31/3/2022 IN`

¶45

`CRL.MC NO. 3583 OF 2022` `7`
`CMP NO. 22/2022 IN STC NO. 73/2018 OF` `JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV,` `KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE14` `TRUE COPY OF CMP NO. 23/2022 IN STC NO.` `73/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV,` `KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE15` `TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CMP NO. 23/2022 IN STC` `NO. 73/2018 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS` `MAGISTRATE COURT IV, KANNUR.`
`ANNEXURE16` `CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 31/3/2022 IN` `CMP NO. 23/2022 IN STC NO. 73/2018 OF` `JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV,` `KANNUR.`
`RESPONDENTS’` `ANNEXURES` `NIL`

¶46

//True copy//

¶47

PA to Judge

M.P. Balakrishnan v. Raveena Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P. Balakrishnan v. Raveena Mahesh

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

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Saji Ninan Vs C.P.Sureshkumar

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Ambika C.R Vs a. Balakrishnan

A.M.Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

Panchami Raju Vs Eeppan Monichan