Dismissed

Usman Kurikkal O.V. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2024Crl.MC/6909/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought quashing of protest-complaint proceedings for offences under Sections 420 and 506(ii) IPC relating to an alleged fraudulent teacher appointment. The court found prima facie deceitful intent disclosed but permitted withdrawal; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; Magistrate directed to expedite and finalise trial within four months.

Usman Kurikkal O.V. Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 6909 OF 2017

¶6

CRIME NO.612/2011 OF PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

CC NO.1963 OF 2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,CHITTUR

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

USMAN KURIKKAL O.V.
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.CHERIA KUNHUMMUTTY KURIKKAL HAJI,KURIKKAL HOUSE,VIP
ROAD,MANJERI COLLEGE.P.O,MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.D.FEROZE
SRI.V.VINAY

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶13

ERNAKULAM-682031,(CRIME NO.612/2011 OF PUTHUNAGARAM
POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD DISTRICT).

¶14

2HARIPRIYA
AGED 44 YEARS,W/O.MURALEEDHARAN,SRAMBY KULUMBU
VEEDU,MANGALAM DAM.P.O,VANDAZHI PANCHAYATH,ALATHOOR
TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678002.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.NIMA JACOB
R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 6.6.2024,
THE COURT ON 12.6.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.M.C.NO.6909 OF 2017 2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2024

¶20

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed

¶21

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.' hereinafter), to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.1963/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

I have perused the relevant documents, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others reported in [2022 KHC 6328] , with reference to paragraph No.42 therein.

¶24

In this matter, it is alleged by the de facto complainant, who filed protest complaint against the refer report filed by the investigating officer that, the

¶25

CRL.M.C.NO.6909 OF 2017 3

¶26

complainant who passed M.A. B.Ed and SET, while searching for a job, she got information from one Pratheesh that there was one vacancy at K.K.M. Higher Secondary School, Vandithavalam. Thereafter, she reached the school and met the accused at his cabin on 21.11.2005. Accordingly, the accused offered the post of Junior Geography teacher at the school on assuring that the same was a clear vacancy and there was no hindrance to get the post approved. Further, the accused took the responsibility of approval of the post. Accordingly, it is alleged that the accused demanded Rs.10 Lakh, out of which, Rs.5 Lakh was paid on 5.12.2005 and for the remaining amount, 2 cheques were issued. Later, she was given appointment order and she joined on 5.12.2005. She continued there upto 31.5.2010. But the accused did not give salary at all. Apart from that, the amount of Rs.5 Lakh received from her was also not given back. Further allegation is that, when she demanded back the amount, she was threatened. Accordingly, the case of the complainant is that the accused herein committed offences punishable under

¶27

CRL.M.C.NO.6909 OF 2017 4

¶28

Sections 420 and 506(ii) of the IPC. Although the first complaint filed by the petitioner, when directed to be investigated by the learned Magistrate, a refer report was filed on completion of investigation. Thereafter, the complainant filed the present protest complaint.

¶29

The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant while considering the protest complaint and on satisfying that there are primary materials to proceed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(ii) of the IPC. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the said offences. Now, the protest complaint and the subsequent proceedings are pending as C.C.No.1963/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur, are under challenge.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, going by the averments of protest complaint, the vital ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC is lacking, since nowhere in the complaint, it is stated that the accused had a deceitful intention right

¶31

CRL.M.C.NO.6909 OF 2017 5

¶32

from the very inception to cheat and defraud the de facto complainant, in any manner. In this connection, he relied on paragraph No.42 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others reported in [2022 KHC 6328] and two other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in [2013 KHC 4066] and Vesa Holdings P.Ltd. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others reported in [2015 KHC 4224] . He also submitted that, the petitioner herein filed writ petition and sought the relief to get post of Music Teacher as one converted to Geography Teacher, though this Court was not inclined to the said relief. Accordingly, the learned counsel pressed for quashment.

¶33

Whereas, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that, this is a clear case of cheating, since the de facto complainant was appointed as a Teacher in the vacancy of Geography teacher, where, in fact, no such post sanctioned by the Government at the time of making appointment.

¶34

CRL.M.C.NO.6909 OF 2017 6

¶35

On perusal of the records, earlier, a complaint was filed by the de facto complainant before the learned Magistrate, seeking investigation and the learned Magistrate ordered investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the police filed refer report stating that no offences made out. Thereafter, the present protest complaint was filed and acting on the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(ii) of the IPC. On perusal of the materials available, it is perceivable that, the accused, who was well aware of the fact that there was no possibility of getting approval to the post, for which, appointment was given, prima facie had a deceitful intention, at the very inception. But, the said aspect to be proved by evidence. Thus, the prosecution allegations are well made out, prima facie, warranting trial of the matter.

¶36

Holding so, when this Court was about to dismiss the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn, observing so.

¶37

CRL.M.C.NO.6909 OF 2017 7

¶38

Since the case has been pending from 2012 onwards, there shall be a direction to the learned Magistrate to expedite the trial and finalise the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶41

Usman Kurikkal O.V. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usman Kurikkal O.V. 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

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudheen Vs State of Kerala

Sreenath Vs State of Kerala

Jezwin Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Samson Vs State of Kerala