Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sreekumar Vs. State of Kerala

Sreekumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 01, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1153859

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sreekumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....punishable under sec.420 of the indian penal code, secs.3 and 4 r/w sec.17 of the kerala money lenders act, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.2. learned public prosecutor has opposed the application. it is submitted that the de facto complainant had in the year, 2008 borrowed `8,00,000/- from m/s.muthoot vehicles and assets finance ltd. for purchase of a vehicle for the school of which the de facto complainant is the manager. the de facto complainant remitted `11,60,000/- and even going by the terms of the agreement, the maximum amount to be paid is only `86,000/-. while so, the petitioner has issued a letter demanding `2,00,000/- more. there is also an attempt to forcibly take away the vehicle.3. learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. the company aforesaid is a non banking financial institution and the de facto complainant availed the loan on the strength of hypothecation of the vehicle. the de facto complainant is liable to b.a.no.4773 of 2014 2 pay the amount due to the company as per the agreement.4. assuming that any balance amount is due to the petitioner or the company aforesaid, he/it can take only action as provided under the law. if as submitted by the learned counsel, arbitration proceedings are initiated, if the petitioner or the company wants to proceed against the vehicle, there is sufficient provision in the arbitration and conciliation act to be invoked.5. having regard to the above, i am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but subject to conditions. the application is disposed of as under: (i) petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating crime no.1039 of 2014 of the punalur police station on 07.07.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation. (ii) in case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply. (iii) petitioner shall co-operate with the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE1T DAY OF JULY201410TH ASHADHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 4773 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1039/2014 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED: -------------------------- SREEKUMAR AGED33YEARS S/O.VISWANATHAN, WORKING AS THE ASSISTANT MANAGER (BRANCH IN CHARGE) MUTHOOT VECHICLE AND ASSET FINANCE LTD, PUNALUR RESIDING AT MEENTHALODE PUTHEN VEEDU, ELAMPAL P.O. PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV C RASHEED THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0107-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

========================= B.A.No.4773 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 01st day of July, 2014 ORDER

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.1039 of 2014 of the Punalur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sec.420 of the Indian Penal Code, Secs.3 and 4 r/w Sec.17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the de facto complainant had in the year, 2008 borrowed `8,00,000/- from M/s.Muthoot Vehicles and Assets Finance Ltd. for purchase of a vehicle for the school of which the de facto complainant is the Manager. The de facto complainant remitted `11,60,000/- and even going by the terms of the agreement, the maximum amount to be paid is only `86,000/-. While so, the petitioner has issued a letter demanding `2,00,000/- more. There is also an attempt to forcibly take away the vehicle.

3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. The company aforesaid is a non banking financial institution and the de facto complainant availed the loan on the strength of hypothecation of the vehicle. The de facto complainant is liable to B.A.No.4773 of 2014 2 pay the amount due to the company as per the agreement.

4. Assuming that any balance amount is due to the petitioner or the company aforesaid, he/it can take only action as provided under the law. If as submitted by the learned counsel, arbitration proceedings are initiated, if the petitioner or the company wants to proceed against the vehicle, there is sufficient provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to be invoked.

5. Having regard to the above, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but subject to conditions. The application is disposed of as under: (i) Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.1039 of 2014 of the Punalur Police Station on 07.07.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation. (ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply. (iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. (iv) Petitioner shall produce all the relevant records in his custody, control and possession before the investigating officer and relating to the matter under investigation. (v) In case of arrest, petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate B.A.No.4773 of 2014 3 on the same day. (iv) On such production the petitioner shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for `20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions: (a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner, (b) Petitioner shall file affidavit before the learned magistrate before executing the bail bond that in case the petitioner or the company wants to proceed against the vehicle which is the subject matter of dispute or recover any amount from the de facto complainant, the petitioner will only take recourse to the law through the appropriate forum. (c) Petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation. (d) Petitioner shall not engage in money lending business without license from the appropriate authority. (e) Petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail. B.A.No.4773 of 2014 4 (f) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. (g) In case the petitioner violates any of condition Nos.(b) to (f), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC100. Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. Sbna True Copy P A to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial