Skip to content


Rashy.S.indran Vs. V.Suresh Babu - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Kerala High Court

Decided On

Judge

Appellant

Rashy.S.indran

Respondent

V.Suresh Babu

Excerpt:


.....village office, pallikkunnu dated2504.2009. annexure vi: copy of the power of attorney executed by the complainant and his brothers in favour of the first accused dated1405.2009. annexure vii: copy of the licence deed dated1805.2009. annexure viii: copy of the order dated1807.2009 in appeal no.514/2009 of the tribunal for local self government institutions. annexure ix: copy of the legal notice dated2307.2009. annexure x: copy of the letter issued by the tower vision india (pvt) ltd. to smt.v.sumangali dated0804.2010. annexure xi: copy of the statement containing details of the cheques issued to the first respondent and his brothers. annexure xii: copy of the judgment dated2910.2011 in o.s.no.348/2009 the munsiff court,kannur. respondent(s)' annexures --------------------------------------------- nil //true copy// p.a.to judge. msd. k. ramakrishnan, j.============================== crl.m.c.no.1412 of 2014 ============================== dated this, the 28th day of march, 2014. order this is an application filed by the petitioner/second accused in crime no.1783/13 of kannur town police station to quash the proceedings as against him under section 482 of code of criminal.....

Judgment:


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE28H DAY OF MARCH20147TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1412 of 2014 ----------------------------------- O.S.NO. 438/2009 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR CRIME NO. 1783/2013 OF KANNUR TOWN , KANNUR ---------------- PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- RASHY.S.INDRAN, MANAGER (LEGAL), M/S.TOWER VISION INDIA (PRIVATE) LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, OLD IMA BUILDING, OPPOSITE LOTUS CLUB, WARRIAM ROAD, COCHIN - 682 016. BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE : ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.SURESH BABU, KOUSTHUBHAM, MAHATHMAJI ROAD, PALLIKKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 004.

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2803-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. Crl.MC.No. 1412 of 2014 ---------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ------------------------------------------ ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- I, KANNUR DATED2111.2013. ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1783 OF2013DATED2511.2013 OF THE KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE III: COPY OF THE NO DUES FROM OF THE PETITIONER DATED2804.2010. ANNEXURE IV: COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT OF THE PETITIONER DATED1301.2014. ANNEXURE V: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PALLIKKUNNU DATED2504.2009. ANNEXURE VI: COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND HIS BROTHERS IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST ACCUSED DATED1405.2009. ANNEXURE VII: COPY OF THE LICENCE DEED DATED1805.2009. ANNEXURE VIII: COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED1807.2009 IN APPEAL NO.514/2009 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. ANNEXURE IX: COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED2307.2009. ANNEXURE X: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE TOWER VISION INDIA (PVT) LTD. TO SMT.V.SUMANGALI DATED0804.2010. ANNEXURE XI: COPY OF THE STATEMENT CONTAINING DETAILS OF THE CHEQUES ISSUED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND HIS BROTHERS. ANNEXURE XII: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED2910.2011 IN O.S.NO.348/2009 THE MUNSIFF COURT,KANNUR. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES --------------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd. K. Ramakrishnan, J.

============================== Crl.M.C.No.1412 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 28th day of March, 2014. ORDER

This is an application filed by the petitioner/second accused in Crime No.1783/13 of Kannur Town Police Station to quash the proceedings as against him under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is arrayed as second accused in Crime No.1783/13 of Kannur Town Police Station. The case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by first respondent alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 465, 471, 467, 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against two accused persons including the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Kannur and the same was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned magistrate and on that basis, Annexure A2 First Information Report was registered as Crime No.1783/13 of Kannur Town Police Station. The first accused is the sister of the complainant in the case. The petitioner was working in Tower Vision India (Private) Limited, as a Legal Crl.M.C.No.1412 of 2014 :

2. : Manager and he had not committed any offence. He had only verified the documents and he had acted only as a Power of Attorney holder of the Company. He has been falsely implicated in the case. There is civil suit also filed in respect of the same property as O.S.No.438/09 and that suit was decreed. The licence was granted by first accused to the second accused Company and on that basis the tower was constructed. So, they have not committed any offence. So, they prayed for quashing the proceedings invoking the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. On the basis of the allegations, a report has been called for from the investigating officer who is conducting the investigation of this case and he has filed a statement which reads as follows: "It is respectfully submitted that on 14.05.2009, after the death of the complainant's mother, A1 & A2 jointly made fake power of attorney of the 92 cents land statued at Pallikkunnu amsom, Chalad belonging to the complainant, his brothers and also to A1 and used it was original, obtained Rs.50,000/- as deposit and Rs.6,000/- as monthly rent from A2 for installing mobile tower in the said land and signed the licensed deed and thereby cheated the complainant etc. facts. Investigation conducted so far reveals that A2 (petitioner) who is the Legal Manager of the Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd., signed an agreement with A1 on 18.05.2009, Crl.M.C.No.1412 of 2014 :

3. : on the basis of power of attorney held by him on behalf of her brothers for a monthly license fees of Rs.6,000/- and refundable security deposit of Rs.50,000/- for setting up mobile tower in the land belonging to A1 and her brothers situated in RS.No.98/14 in Pallikkunnu Village, Kannur Taluk. When the A1 produced the power of Attorney the petitioner noticed that the same was not attested by the Notary and when asked about this A1 collected back the same promising that she will return the same after getting it attested by the Notary. A2 had signed the agreement in good faith since the father of A1 and complainant signed as witness in the agreement and possession certificate produced by A1 which shows the property belongs to her. Hence there is no intention from the part of A2 to cheat the complainant or to make any individual benefit. Investigation conducted so far reveals that the petitioner has not committed any offence alleged against him in the FIR. Hence a report has been submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur for deleting him from the accused column. The case is now on the investigation stage. As part of the investigation A1 is questioned and she stated the alleged power of Attorney is handed over to the company on questioning A2, he denied and stated that A1 has collected back the same for attesting the Notary. So the original power of Attorney to be found out and more investigation to be conducted. Three months time for furnishing the investigation and filing the charge sheet." 4. Considering the statement filed by the investigating officer, this court felt that this can be disposed of dispensing notice to first respondent as it is mentioned in the report that Crl.M.C.No.1412 of 2014 :

4. : on the basis of the investigation, they came to a conclusion that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged against him and so a report has been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-1, Kannur for deleting him from the array of accused. In view of the above statement, there is no necessity to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner because, he has been deleted from the party array by the investigating officer themselves. So, the above statement of the second respondent is recorded and the petition is disposed of. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //