Allowed

Ramesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2024Crl.MC/4921/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of offences under IPC Sections 120B, 406, 408 and 420. Held that mere dishonour of a cheque for insufficient funds in business transactions does not attract criminal liability absent proof of dishonest misappropriation. The case was remitted to civil courts for monetary disputes.

What did the court decide?

Criminal prosecution against the petitioners in C.C. No. 668/2016 arising from Crime No. 1509/2013 is quashed. All further proceedings are stayed.

Ramesh Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 4921 OF 2016

¶6

CRIME NO.1509/2013 OF Palarivattom Police Station,

¶7

Ernakulam

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.668 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL

¶9

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- IX, ERNAKULAM

¶10

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 3:

¶11

1 RAMESH C S, AGED 4O YEARS, S/O SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, CHERUKUTTA ILLAM, KOOVAPPADY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2V.M.RAVI
PARTNER, TRADO TRADERS, MATTATHIL BUILDING,MARKET
ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.P.K.VARGHESE

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

2VIJU VENUGOPAL
AGED 44 YEARS, W/O VENUGOPAL, KALLMADATHIL HOUSE,
ERRA-82, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH
VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.682040
BY ADV SRI.K.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.M.C.4921/2016

¶20

¶21

P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.4921 of 2016

¶23

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2024

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.668/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 408 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3.

¶26

The prosecution case is that the petitioners in Annexure-I chargesheet issued a cheque for Rs.33,500/- drawn on Punjab National Bank in favour of M/s.Sreelakshmi Agencies and the cheque was returned unpaid due to insufficiency of funds. The defacto complainant was running a coconut oil mill by name Sreelakshmai Agencies. The 2^nd accused, who is one of the partner of M/s.Trado Traders and who is working as the Manager of the

¶27

¶28

Crl.M.C.4921/2016

¶29

defacto complainant’s oil mill had taken away Rs.86,000/-, some documents, and office files from the office of the defacto complainant on 17.07.2013. Based on the above allegation, a private complaint was filed by the defacto complainant before the jurisdictional court as evident by Annexure-II. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C and the police registered the case as Crime No.1509/2013. Consequently, Annexure-I final report is filed. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offences alleged are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the public prosecutor.

¶31

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in Annexure-I charge sheet, the only allegation against the petitioners is that, they being the partners of M/s.Trado Traders, issued a cheque to the defacto complainant’s firm for Rs.33,500/- and it is dishonoured for the reason that insufficient fund. It is also submitted that, there is no case in Annexure-I final report to the

¶32

¶33

Crl.M.C.4921/2016

¶34

effect that, on 17.07.2013, the 2^nd accused had taken away Rs.86,000/- and other documents from the office of the defacto complainant with the knowledge and consent of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, there is business transaction between the firm of the petitioners and the firm of the defacto complainant. It is also submitted that, there is no case for the defacto complainant regarding the entrustment of any property or dishonestly misappropriating or converting the property by the petitioners. The only grievance of the defacto complainant against the petitioners is that the cheque issued by the firm of the petitioners was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. According to the petitioners, the dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds in the account is not a ground to proceed against the petitioners under Sections 406 and 408 IPC.

¶35

The public prosecutor submitted that the contentions of the petitioners are all matter of evidence and the petitioners has to adduce evidence to prove the same before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

¶36

¶37

Crl.M.C.4921/2016

¶38

Even though the defacto complainant was implicated as 2^nd respondent in this Criminal Miscellaneous case and notice was issued to him, he refused to appear before this Court.

¶39

This court perused the final report. After going through the final report and the documents produced by the prosecution, I am of the considered opinion that, there is some force in the argument of the petitioners. The prosecution case is mainly regarding the dishonor of a cheque.

¶40

There are business transaction between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent. The allegations of the prosecution are all financial transaction between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent. No criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. Moreover, there is no appearance also for the 2^nd respondent in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case which is filed to quash the proceedings. That itself show that the 2^nd respondent is also not interested to proceed against the petitioners. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal prosecution is not necessary. If there is any monitory dispute, the defacto complainant is free to approach the competent civil court.

¶41

Crl.M.C.4921/2016

¶42

¶43

With the above observation, the criminal prosecution against the petitioners can be quashed.

¶44

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.668/2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam, arising from crime No.1509/2013 of Palarivattom Police Station are quashed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

Sbna/15.07.24

Crl.M.C.4921/2016

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4921/2016

¶51

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.1509/2013 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE II:TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE
COMPLAINANT DATED 8.11.2013 FILED BY THE
DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE III:TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICES DATED
8.10.2013.
ANNEXURE IV:TRUE COPIES OF THE BILLS DATED 21.6.2013,
25.6.2013, 27.6.2016, 28.6.2013 AND
30.6.2013.
ANNEXURE V:TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.1.2014
SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE
COMMISIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE VI:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
26.8.2014 ISSUED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE DCRB, KOCHI CITY.

Ramesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh 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

A.Muhammed Ismail Vs State of Kerala

Anjaneyan Ullanattu Vs the State of Kerala

Jayakrishnan Vs Benny.K.Korah

Ramesh Sahni Vs State of Kerala

Shino Eapen Vs State of Kerala

Sneha Vs State of Kerala