Dismissed

Alice v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2022Crl.MC/710/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the defacto complainant seeking to quash an order of acquittal and dismissal of a revision petition. The High Court held no grounds existed to interfere with the decisions of the trial and revisional courts. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed without any finding of guilt or relief.

Alice Vs the 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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 710 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRRP 390/2009 OF ADDITIONAL

¶7

DISTRICT COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN CC 5/2008 DATED 24.09.2009 ON

¶9

THE FILES OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

¶10

KODUNGALLUR

¶11

PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACT COMPLAINANT :

¶12

ALICE, AGED 39 YEARS W/O.VARGHESE, EDATTUKARAN HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI PARIYARATH SRI.SAYED MURTHALA THANGAL

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT STATE OF KERALA AND

¶16

ACCUSED :

¶17

1 THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 031.

¶18

2 TONY S/O.ANTONY, THADIKARAN HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN 680122.

¶19

BY SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., PP

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.MC NO. 710 OF 2013

¶22

¶23

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶24

......…..................................

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.710 of 2013

¶26

….................................. Dated this the 17th day of November, 2022

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioner was the defacto complainant in Crime No.280/2006 of Mathilakam Police Station. On the basis of a complaint, alleging offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; investigation was commenced and thereafter a final report was filed which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.5/2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kodungallur. Parties are referred to as accused and defacto complainant.

¶29

According to the prosecution, the accused, who was the Managing Director of a stabilizer manufacturing unit, with an intention to evade tax and to make unlawful gain, had created forged documents in the name of the defacto complainant without her consent

¶30

CRL.MC NO. 710 OF 2013

¶31

¶32

and knowledge and misrepresented to the authorities create a financial liability to the defacto complainant, and thereby committed the offences as alleged.

¶33

In the course of trial, as many as 12 witnesses were

¶34

examined as PW1 to PW12 and marked Exts.P1 to Ext.P19. Curiously, the Investigating Officer was not examined and he in fact even failed to turn up for examination. Despite the fatal omission to examine the Investigating Officer, the trial court, considered the case on merits and after appreciating the entire prosecution evidence; came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations. It was also found that prosecution had also failed to adduce any legally acceptable evidence to connect the accused with the offences alleged and, therefore, the benefit of doubt was liable to be granted to the accused and thus he was acquitted.

¶35

The defacto complainant preferred a revision petition

¶36

as Crl.R.P.No.390/2009 before the Additional Sessions

¶37

Court, Irinjalakuda. However, by order dated

¶38

CRL.MC NO. 710 OF 2013

¶39

¶40

29.09.2012, the learned Sessions Judge, in a brief order, dismissed the revision petition. Petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge, in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶41

Sri.Aamir Sohrab M.M. and Sri.G.Sreekumar Chelur,

¶42

the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, vehemently contended that the Sessions Court committed an egregious error in dismissing the revision petition, since after having noticed the failure on the part of the prosecution to examine the investigating officer, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have, at least, remanded the case for a fresh trial. The learned counsel further contended that even otherwise on merits also there was sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime and, therefore, the acquittal of the accused at the first instance and the dismissal of the revision petition by the Sessions Court were both erroneous and liable to be interfered with.

¶43

Sri.Biju Abraham, the learned counsel for the 2 nd

¶44

CRL.MC NO. 710 OF 2013

¶45

¶46

respondent/accused, on the other hand, contended that the jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482

¶47

of Cr.P.C., to interfere with an order of dismissal of a revision petition, is extremely limited and practically unavailable. It was also contended that no grounds have been made out by the defacto complainant to interfere with an order of acquittal and, therefore, considering the fact that the State had not even filed an appeal against the said acquittal, this Court ought not to interfere with a well-considered order of the learned Magistrate as well as the order of the learned Sessions Judge.

¶48

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶49

The prosecution case was that the accused had forged certain documents to create a new establishment in the name of the defacto complainant for the purpose of gaining tax benefits and that the defacto complainant was unaware about such a new establishment or the execution of documents relating to that establishment. The learned Magistrate, after

¶50

CRL.MC NO. 710 OF 2013

¶51

¶52

appreciating the evidence on records, came to a conclusion that there was no evidence to show that

¶53

the accused had put the signatures in the agreement. It was also found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution had not only failed to support the case of the defacto complainant but also did not even connect the accused with the crime. A specific finding was entered into that, it was not possible to find out as to who forged the documents to cause an unlawful gain, as alleged by the prosecution and that from the evidence on records there was nothing to show that it was the accused who forged the documents or impersonated the defacto complainant. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered with in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., especially since the revisional court affirmed the same.

¶54

In view of the limited jurisdiction exercised by this

¶55

Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., I am satisfied

¶56

that no reasons have been made out by the defacto complainant to interfere with the order issued in

¶57

CRL.MC NO. 710 OF 2013

¶58

¶59

Crl.R.P.No.390/2009 on the files of the Additional

¶60

Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda.

¶61

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. fails and the same is

¶62

dismissed.

¶63

AMV/17/11/2022

¶64

CRL.MC NO. 710 OF 2013

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS ANNEURES

ANNEXURE-I	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.5 OF 2008
	DATED 24.09.2009 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,KODUNGALLUR.
ANNEXURE-II	COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.R.P.NO.390
	OF 2009 DATED 29.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
	ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,INRINJALAKUDA.

¶69

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL

Alice v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alice v. the 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

Ismail Vs S.H.O Punalur Police Station

Krishna Prasad Vs the Sub Inspector, Malayinkeezhu

Onankunju.a.a. Vs State of Kerala

Sofikul Islam Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu S Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer Vs Station House Officer