Dismissed

Jayanthi Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2023Crl.MC/4365/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the applicant's plea to quash an FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court held that since allegations suggest a cognizable offence, investigation is required under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and malafides alone cannot quash such proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the FIR and all further proceedings was rejected; the Crim. Misc. Case is dismissed.

Jayanthi Krishnan Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.4365/20

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 14TH POUSHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 4365 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶7

JAYANTHI KRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.MANI V.K., AISWARYA, VELIYANOOR, THRISSUR-680 563.

¶8

BY ADVS. P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR SRI.PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH) SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN SHRI.PRASOON SUNNY SHRI.RAHUL RAJ P.

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PINCODE-682 031 THROUGH THE SI OF POLICE, OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.

Crl.M.C.No.4365/20

2 S.AJITHKUMAR,

DGM IN CHARGE, PRODUCTION DIVISION, KERALA SIDCO LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CANTONMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, PIN-695 019.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR SRI.N.O.JOHN SMT.SEENA C -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.4365/20

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.129 of 2019 of Ollur Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

¶21

The petitioner is an employee of Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO). The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused is that, during the period from 23.12.2015 to 28.02.2016, the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,30,327/- by creating false documents. It is alleged that using the false documents the accused persons collected amounts from the customers of the de facto complainant company directly and did not appropriate the same to the accounts of the complainant company. Annexure A7 is the FIR and this Crl MC is filed to quash the same and all further proceedings pursuant to the same.

¶22

The main contention put forward by the petitioner is that, the proceedings are initiated as a retaliation against her

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.4365/20

¶24

¶25

since she submitted several complaints against some of the persons in the management of the company. It is also contended by the petitioner that there are no materials to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant points out that, as against the petitioner and the other accused, total four crimes were registered, all of them containing similar allegations. In all the other cases, the investigation has been completed, final reports were submitted, and cognizance was taken by the Judicial First Class Magistrate court-III, Thrissur. It is also pointed out that, in Crl.M.C.No.9280 of 2019, filed by the petitioner challenging FIR registered in Crime No.1116 of 2018 of Ollur Police Station, this Court has already declined the prayer on the ground that the matter requires investigation.

¶27

After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings. The challenge in

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.4365/20

¶29

¶30

this case is against the FIR and what is relevant for consideration as regards the challenge against an FIR, is whether the allegations contained in the complaint reveal a cognizable offence or not. If the allegation/information indicates the commission of cognizable offences, it is a matter to be investigated, and no interference is warranted. The question whether any materials to substantiate the said allegation is there or not, is irrelevant at this stage. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner about the harassment meted out to her by the management is beyond the scope of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage. Malafides alone cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings when there are materials/ allegations suggestive of the commission of cognizable offences. When the records placed before me are considered in that perspective, I am of the view that the matter requires investigation and therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain this Crl.M.C.

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.4365/20

¶32

¶33

In such circumstances, this Crl. M.C. is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. would not preclude the petitioner from challenging the final report, if any, filed by the police after the completion of the investigation.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

DG/5.1.23

Crl.M.C.No.4365/20

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4365/2020

¶41

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶42

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY PETITIONER DATED 27.7.2018.

¶43

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.0839/2018 OF PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION DATED 27.7.2018.

¶44

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR CRIME NO.642/2018 CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION DATED 18.9.2018. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO.2964/VG/2018 DATED 10.12.2018. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.41761/2018 DATED 10.1.2019.

¶45

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.9.2019 FROM ENQUIRY OFFICER INTIMATING HEARING.

¶46

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.9714/2020 DATED 15.5.2020.

¶47

ANNEXURE A8 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.129 OF 2019 CRIME NO.129/2019 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.1.2019. ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.12.2018 MADE BY THE SUPPLIER.

¶48

Crl.M.C.No.4365/20

¶49

¶50

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO.32258/2019 FILED BY THE SUPPLIER IN THIS REGARD (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) DATED 27.11.2019. ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPIES OF OLD STAMPED RECEIPTS ISSUED BY OTHER EMPLOYEES IN SIDCO EARLIER DATED NIL.

Jayanthi Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanthi Krishnan 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

Faisal C.K Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Tt Vs State of Kerala

R. Mohanan Vs Station House Officer

Ananthu Somasekharan Vs Deepuchandran

Binu, Vs Director General of Police

Raju, Vs State of Kerala