Partly allowed

Emmanuel Thomas v. 1. the State Police Chief

Kerala HC26 Jul 2022WP(Crl.)/199/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the closure of a criminal complaint by the 2nd respondent alleging forged bank sanction letters. The court held that the Banking Ombudsman's process regarding interest disputes did not bar criminal investigation into forgery, directing the police to examine the materials.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action on the complaint after examining the materials placed on records.

Emmanuel Thomas Vs 1. the State Police Chief — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(CRL.) NO. 199 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

EMMANUEL THOMAS
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O THOMAS
KAPPIL HOUSE, KARIMBA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN-678597, MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S SOUTH INDIAN RUBBER COMPANY, KARIMBA P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678597

¶7

BY ADVS.
JACOB SEBASTIAN
K.V.WINSTON
ANU JACOB

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN – 695010

¶10

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 678001

¶11

BY ADV
ADV SREEJA V,PP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(CRL.) NO. 199 OF 2022

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court, praying for the following reliefs:

¶17

“I) Issue appropriate directions commanding 2^nd respondent to look into the complaint raised in exhibit - P5, register a crime for the offences raised, investigate and file report before the competent judicial magistrate within a time frame that this Honourable court may fix; and

¶18

II) Issue such other writ, order or direction this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶19

The facts which led to the filing of this writ petition are

¶20

as follows: the petitioner is the Managing Director of a business concern under the name M/s.South Indian Rubber Company which is engaged in rubber trading. The petitioner is maintaining a bank account for the firm with HDFC Bank Ltd, College Road Branch, Palakkad, which is numbered as 15338970000469. According to him, from April 2015 to October 2016, the bank debited an excessive interest charge for Rs.13,87,866/- for a period of 16 months. Since the petitioner noticed that the aforesaid interest was not in tune with the credit facility which he had already availed, he submitted a complaint before the authorities concerned. As there was no action, he approached the Banking Ombudsman by filing a

¶21

¶22

WP(CRL.) NO. 199 OF 2022

¶23

complaint against the Bank. As per Ext.P2, the Banking Ombudsman disposed of the said complaint by directing to refund an amount of Rs.6,75,216/- to the petitioner as it was found that the complaint raised by the petitioner was genuine. It is stated that the petitioner challenged the said order of the Ombudsman by filing W.P.(C) No.9813/2019 before this Court and as per the judgment dated 27.01.2020, the Banking Ombudsman was directed to reconsider the complaint afresh.

¶24

While the aforesaid matter was being reconsidered, the Bank has produced certain documents, including loan sanction letters and Ext.P3 sanction of credit facilities, relating to the transactions with the petitioner, which according to him, are forged ones. As the petitioner suspected the creation of the forged document, the petitioner referred the sanction letter to forensic examination to DNA Forensic Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, which is a NABL accredited forensic examination centre.n Ext.P4 is the forensic report wherein it was found that the signature contained in Ext.P3 is not that of the petitioner. Ext.P5 complaint was submitted

¶25

¶26

WP(CRL.) NO. 199 OF 2022

¶27

by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent in such circumstances. The petitioner's grievance is that the 2nd respondent is taking no proper action on Ext.P5. This writ petition was submitted in such circumstances.

¶28

Heard Sri.Jacob Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Sreeja V., learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶29

When the matter came up for consideration today, the

¶30

learned Government Pleader made available a copy of the statement of facts forwarded by the Station House Officer concerned. In the

¶31

said statement, it is stated that they have considered the complaint submitted by the petitioner. But since it is a monetary matter and the matter is now pending before the Banking Ombudsman, the 2^nd respondent has closed the complaint without any legal action mainly because, once the Ombudsman decides the issue, the grievance of the petitioner shall stand redressed.

¶32

On perusal of the records, I am of the view that the reasons stated by the 2^nd respondent for closing the complaint are

¶33

¶34

WP(CRL.) NO. 199 OF 2022

¶35

not proper. The remedies pursued by the petitioner before the Ombudsman is for different purposes, and the allegations raised in Ext.P5 are entirely different. If there are materials indicating the commission of the offence, then it is a matter to be investigated by the police, and under no circumstances the reasons cited by the 2^nd respondent can stand in the way of such investigation. Therefore, I am of the view that the decision taken by the 2^nd respondent to close Ext.P5 complaint is not legally sustainable.

¶36

Therefore, the 2^nd respondent is directed to take appropriate action on Ext.P5 after examining the materials placed on records. This writ petition is thus disposed of, with the above direction.

¶37

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶38

scs

¶39

WP(CRL.) NO. 199 OF 2022

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 199/2022

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1A TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL CUM
SANCTION LETTER ISSUED BY THE BANK
DATED 12.10.2015 .
Exhibit-P2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
BANKING OMBUDSMAN DATED 30.06.2017.
Exhibit-P3A TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL CUM
SANCTION LETTER PRODUCED BY THE BANK
BEFORE BANKING OMBUDSMAN DATED
12.10.2015.
Exhibit-P4A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF FORENSIC
EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNATURE DATED
17.09.2021.
Exhibit-P5A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALONG
WITH ITS ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
29.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT .

Emmanuel Thomas v. 1. the State Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emmanuel Thomas v. 1. the State Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K. Basheer Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate(Rdo)

T.K.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

Madhumadanan Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs Ramesh

Safvan T Vs State of Kerala