Dismissed

Ranjini v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Apr 2024Crl.MC/7677/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Special Leave Petitioner filed a writ petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings initiated via a protest complaint. The court found prima facie materials against the petitioners, noting the accused procured money with offer of profit. The petition was therefore dismissed, allowing trial to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashment of cognizance dismissed; matter directed to be placed for trial.

Ranjini Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 7677 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.139/2014 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CC NO.509 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,

¶7

MATTANCHERY

¶8

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶9

1 RANJINI AGED 49 YEARS 12/1280, CHANEPARAMBIL CHULLIKKAL, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI - 682005

¶10

2 KIRAN @ KIRAN KUMAR AGED 27 YEARS S/O KISHORE, CHANEPARAMBIL, CHULLIKKAL, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI, PIN - 682005 3 KISHORE KUMAR AGED 54 YEARS S/O C.M. MANOHARAN, 12/1280, CHANEPARAMBIL, CHULLIKKAL, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI, PIN - 682005

¶11

BY ADVS. DENIZEN KOMATH RENU B RAJ.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 A. K. USHA AGED 49 YEARS HOUSE NO 12/405, SUDHA NIVAS, PANAYAPILLY, KOCHI, PIN - 682002

¶14

BY ADVS. M.H.HANIS P.M.JINIMOL(K/1092/2004) T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR(K/1181/2010) NANCY MOL P.(K/650/2012)

¶15

SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.MC NO. 7677 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Dated this the 9^th day of April, 2024

¶21

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of

¶22

Criminal Procedure to quash cognizance taken, as per order dated 29.04.2016, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattancherry in C.C.No.509/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 419, 420 and 423 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during investigation, the original complaint filed by the de facto complainant alleging the above offences was referred by the police, since no offence made out during investigation. Thereafter, a protest complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate, acting on the protest complaint, took cognizance

¶25

¶26

CRL.MC NO. 7677 OF 2022

¶27

in this matter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegation of receipt of money by the 2^nd accused could not be justified since he was abroad at the time when the alleged transaction took place.

¶28

In this connection, the learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioners has placed copy of passport of the 2^nd accused. But the passport does not exactly depict the said fact. Procurement of money by accused Nos.1 to 3, to the tune of Rs.4 lakh with offer to provide profit and non return of the said amount or the profit as against the assurance are the crux of the matter. There is allegation that some documents also were signed by the de facto complainant.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant that the 2^nd accused went abroad only during the month of August 2011 and the receipt of Rs.2,50,000/- by accused Nos.1 to 3 was on 17.07.2011 and

¶31

the remaining Rs.1.5 lakh was received by accused Nos.1

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 7677 OF 2022 4

¶33

and 3 while the 2^nd accused was abroad.

¶34

On perusal of the protest complaint and the order

¶35

of cognizance, materials to constitute the offences could be gathered, prima facie, and therefore, the matter shall go for trial. Therefore, the quashment relief is not liable to be granted.

¶36

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to raise their contentions during trial.

¶37

Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶38

nkr

¶39

¶40

CRL.MC NO. 7677 OF 2022

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7677/2022

¶42

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶43

ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANCHERRY AS CMP NO. 646/2014 ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NUMBER 139/2014 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A-3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NUMBER 139/2014 ANNEXURE A-4 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROTEST COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS CC.NO.509 /2016 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANCHERRY ANNEXURE A-5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PASSPORT OF 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED ON 12/02/2009 ANNEXURE A-6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29.04.2016 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 417, 420, & 426 R/W 34 OF IPC

Ranjini v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjini 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

Dilshad C.H., Vs State of Kerala

Latheef Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Salam.K Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Ummer P.M, Vs State of Kerala

Unni @ Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala