Dismissed

J. Ramkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Apr 2024Crl.MC/2511/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the allegations in the final report disclosed the ingredients of forgery and cheating offences. It reiterated that the High Court must proceed on the basis of allegations and cannot assess evidence or sift materials at the threshold.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; proceedings to continue.

J. Ramkumar Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2511 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.292/2014 OF Chengannoor Police Station, Alappuzha

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.2777 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHENGANNUR

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

J. RAMKUMAR
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. JAYAPAL, RESIDING AT ANJILIVILAYIL HOUSE,
THONNALLOR MURI, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PROPRIETOR, ARYAS HOTEL, CHENGANNUR.
BY ADV K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

2 ASHOK JACOB

¶13

S/O. P. V. JACOB, PADIPURACKAL HOUSE, THITTAMEL MURI,
CHENGANNUR P. O., PIN - 689 121.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

LIJU.V.STEPHEN
INDU SUSAN JACOB

¶16

SRI.G.SUDHEER.PP

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶18

02.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

CRL.MC NO. 2511 OF 2021

¶21

K.BABU, J.

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.2511 of 2021

¶23

Dated this the 2^nd day of April, 2024

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The prayer in this Criminal M.C is as follows:-

¶26

“ ….this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in Annexure2 final report in crime No.292/2014 of Chengannur Police Station now pending as C.C.No.2777 of 2016 pending JFCM-1, Chengannur, in the interest of justice.”

¶27

The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.292 of 2014 of Chengannur Police Station, now pending as C.C.No.2777 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur. The petitioner and the other accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

The prosecution case:

¶29

The petitioner is a tenant of building No.XIII/269(4), situated in survey Nos.294/8-2, 294/8 of Chengannur village. The defacto complainant is the landlord. The petitioner is

¶30

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 2511 OF 2021

¶32

running a hotel in the name ‘Aryas Hotel’. He purchased a stamp paper on 31.03.2009 and created an agreement on 04.04.2009, in the presence of accused No.2 and CW6, reciting that the landlord agreed to pay Rs.5,97,500/- as interest to him. The petitioner himself put the signature of the landlord in the agreement, kept the document in his possession and filed the same in a suit before the Sub Court, Chenganoor, in O.S.43 of 2013 to recover the said amount.

¶33

The defacto complainant filed a complaint alleging the aforesaid offences before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengannur. The Police registered the above crime, conducted investigation and submitted final report alleging the offences referred to above. The final report is under challenge in this petition.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexure-2 final report is unsustainable in law. The material placed on record does not reveal the ingredients of the offences

¶36

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 2511 OF 2021

¶38

alleged. The learned counsel further submitted that Annexure3 report of the Scientific Assistant only says that the ‘questioned’ signatures and the ‘standard’ signatures exhibited significant differences in general writing characteristics such as speed, skill, movement, rhythm etc. The learned counsel submitted that the findings of the Scientific Assistant do not indicate that it was the petitioner who forged the signature as alleged by the defacto complainant.

¶39

The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that prima facie there are materials to frame charges against the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court is not in a position to assess the entire evidence so as to hold that the allegations do not reveal the offences alleged. It is submitted that the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations can be tested at the time of the trial.

¶40

I have gone through the FIS and the final report. In

¶41

¶42

CRL.MC NO. 2511 OF 2021

¶43

the FIS, the defacto complainant specifically alleges that the petitioner committed forgery, created a false document and produced the same before the court. The Investigating Agency, during the course of investigation, collected the standard signatures of the defacto complainant and sent them for comparison to the FSL. The Scientific Assistant, after comparison of the disputed signatures and the standard signatures recorded that the standard signatures differ from the disputed signatures. The material placed by the prosecution discloses the offences alleged.

¶44

It is settled by a long course of decisions of the Apex Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or in the documents accompanying the same Per se. It has been further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. (State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha [(1982) 1 SCC 561],Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [(1985) 2 SCC 370].

¶45

¶46

CRL.MC NO. 2511 OF 2021

¶47

10. In State of Kerala v. O.C.Kuttan [(1999) 2 SCC

¶48

651] , the Apex Court held that while exercising the power, it is not possible for the Court to sift the materials or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other. In State of U.P v. O.P. Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705] a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court observed that High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power under Section 482 or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be, and allow the law to take its own course. This view was reiterated by another three-Judge Bench of Apex Court in Rashmi Kumar v. MaheshKumar Bhada [(1997) 2 SCC 397] , wherein the Apex Court held that such power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised only when the Court is of the opinion that otherwise there will be gross miscarriage of justice. It is trite that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised with circumspection and that too, in rarest of rare cases and it is not justified for this Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the final report or

¶49

¶50

CRL.MC NO. 2511 OF 2021

¶51

complaint. A finding on the veracity of a material relied on by the prosecution in a case where the allegations levelled by the prosecution disclose a cognizable offence, it is not a consideration for the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka

¶52

and Ors.(AIR 2021 SC 5711) .

¶53

The petitioner failed to convince this Court that the allegations levelled against him in the prosecution records and the charges do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The correctness or otherwise of the same is a matter to be decided during the trial. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the contentions raised. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions during trial.

¶54

The Crl.M.C. stands dismissed.

Sd/-

K.BABU, JUDGE

saap

CRL.MC NO. 2511 OF 2021

¶60

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2511/2021

¶61

`PETITIONER ANNE` `ANNEXURE 1`	`XURES` `THE CERTIFIED` `NO.292/14 DATED` `POLICE STATION.`	`COPY OF FIR` `14.02.2014 OF`	`IN CRIME` `CHENGANNUR`
`ANNEXURE 2`	`THE CERTIFIED CO` `CRIME 292/2014` `PENDING AS C.C.N`	`PY OF THE FINAL` `IF CHENGANNUR` `O.2777/2016 OF`	`REPORT IN` `POLICE NOW` `THE JFCM-1,`
	`CHENGANNUR DATED`	`22.09.15.`
`ANNEXURE 3`	`THE COPY OF THE`	`REPORT FROM T`	`HE FORENSIC`
	`LABORATORY,` `T` `16.06.2015.`	`HIRUVANANTHAPUR`	`AM` `DATED`

J. Ramkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Ramkumar 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

Sherly Albert Vs Sheeba George

Aravind.P Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Stalin, Vs State of Kerala

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs S K S Yadav

Rajeevan.T S/O.Karunakakran Vs State of Kerala SHO Thalasserry Police Station] Rep.by Public Prosecutor

Shyamkumar Vs Jacob.K.J.