Complaint alleging Rs.1 lakh borrowed with a cheque that was never presented, leading to dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C.; revision also dismissed. The petitioner sought Section 482 review. The High Court found limited scope for interference and nothing to disturb in the impugned orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 428 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2015 IN CRRP NO.12 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.1489 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONER/REV.PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
GEORGE SAMUEL AGED 61 YEARS 'SALEM', KANDIYOOR MARKET JUNCTION, MATTOM SOUTH MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THATTARAMBALAM P.O, MAVELIKKARA.
BY ADVS. SRI.B.PRAMOD SRI.S.K.SAJI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SUSAN BEENA ZACHARIA, W/O.ZACHARIA, VANIYAM PARAMBIL, KANDIYOOR MARKET JUNCTION, MATTOM SOUTH MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA. 2 GEORGE ZACHARIA, S/O.ZACHARIA VANIYAM PARAMBIL, KANDIYOOR MARKET JUNCTION, MATTOM SOUTH MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA. 3 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. BHANU THILAK SARUN K. IDICULA(K/873/2014) SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.428 of 2016
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Crl.M.C. No.428 of 2016
---------------------------------------------Dated this the 15th day of July, 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed challenging Annexures II and III orders. Annexure II is an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Mavelikara by which a complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The petitioner challenged the same before the Sessions court by filing Crl.R.P.No.12/2014. The Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikara dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by Annexures II and III orders, this Crl.M.C is filed.
petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3
Crl.M.C.No.428 of 2016
The case of the revision petitioner is that, he and respondents 1 and 2 were close relatives. It is alleged that on 16.02.2011, the accused went to the house of the petitioner and borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh promising to repay the same within one month. On the same day, the 1st respondent executed a cheque drawn in her account, maintained with the Canara Bank, Mavelikara Branch for an amount of Rs.1 lakh and payable on 24.03.2011 in favour of the petitioner. However, on 24.03.2011, respondent No.2 very affectionately persuaded the petitioner to abstain from presenting the cheque before the bank. Thus the cheque was not presented on the request of the 2nd respondent and thereafter the validity of the cheque was over and even then the amount was not paid. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence under Section 420 IPC.
4
Crl.M.C.No.428 of 2016
contentions of the petitioner in detail, dismissed the complaint as evident by Annexure II order. The Sessions Judge also confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. This Crl.M.C is filed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. First of all, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the trial court and the revisional court is very limited. Even then this Court perused the impugned order and considered the contentions of the petitioner in detail. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, there is no merit in this case.
Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is
dismissed.
Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
DM
Crl.M.C.No.428 of 2016
5
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 428/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
ANNX.I - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CMP NO.1489/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM COURT-I MAVELIKKARA.
ANNX.II - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2014 IN CMP NO.1489/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM COURT-I MAVELIKKARA. ANNX.III - CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CRL. R.P.NO.12/2014 OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT MAVELIKKARA.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should interfere with the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and confirmation by the revisional court.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
GEORGE SAMUEL
SUSAN BEENA ZACHARIA
GEORGE ZACHARIA
STATE OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
