James vs State of Kerala

JAMES vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided May 20, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1300557

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1300557
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: May 20, 2024
Case Number: Crl.MC/6618/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

JAMES

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....angamaly, arising out of crime no.1895/2011 of angamaly police station.2. according to the prosecution, accused 1 to 3 were conducting abusiness under the name and style ‘sea bair’ at angamaly, and collected an amount of rs.60,000/- from the defacto complainant, promising to arrange a work visa abroad. subsequently, the accused failed to arrange the visa and also refused to return the amount, and thereby committed the offences under section 420 r/w section 34 of the indian penal code, 1860.3. sri. k.r.prathish, the learned counsel for the petitioner,contended that offence alleged against the petitioner has no basis and that he was only an employee of accused 1 and 2 and therefore, he cannot be mulcted with any criminal liability.4. smt. sreeja.v, the learned public prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that from the statement of the defacto complainant itself, it is -:4:- evident that the petitioner had, along with two others, promised to arrange a visa to the defacto complainant and even the amount was handed overto the petitioner. it was pointed out that petitioner’s involvement has clearly been spoken to by the witnesses, and hence, the proceedings ought not to be quashed in exercise of the power under section 482 of cr.p.c.5. on a perusal of the final report, it is evident that the defactocomplainant’s specific case is that he had entrusted an amount of rs.60,000/- to the third accused. it is also the specific case of the defacto complainant that petitioner, along with sri. samad and sri. naseer were conducting the business, all of whom had cheated the defacto complainant.6. the contention now raised is that petitioner was only anemployee of the other accused which is not borne by any document produced by the petitioner. even otherwise, there are no reliable materials for this court come to a conclusion that petitioner has no involvement in the offence alleged. on the other hand, prima facie, the prosecution has alleged that petitioner was.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 6618 OF 2022 CRIME NO.1895/2011 OF ANGAMALI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM IN CC NO.170 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3: JAMES AGED 44 YEARS S/O OUSEPH NETTIKKADAN HOUSE, NEAR FCI GODOWN, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572 BY ADVS. K.R.PRATHISH P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572 3 SANJU AGED 34 YEARS S/O SASI, PUNNAKKATT HOUSE, WEST HILL, PUTHIYANGADI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673021 -:2:- 4 ANTONY S/O PAPPACHAN, MANANI HOUSE, ANAPPARA, MANJAPRA, KALADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683581 BY ADV. SMT. SREEJA.V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.6618 of 2022 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024

ORDER

Petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No.170/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, arising out of Crime No.1895/2011 of Angamaly Police Station.

2. According to the prosecution, accused 1 to 3 were conducting a

business under the name and style ‘Sea Bair’ at Angamaly, and collected an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the defacto complainant, promising to arrange a work visa abroad. Subsequently, the accused failed to arrange the visa and also refused to return the amount, and thereby committed the offences under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Sri. K.R.Prathish, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

contended that offence alleged against the petitioner has no basis and that he was only an employee of accused 1 and 2 and therefore, he cannot be mulcted with any criminal liability.

4. Smt. Sreeja.V, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that from the statement of the defacto complainant itself, it is -:4:- evident that the petitioner had, along with two others, promised to arrange a visa to the defacto complainant and even the amount was handed over

to the petitioner. It was pointed out that petitioner’s involvement has clearly been spoken to by the witnesses, and hence, the proceedings ought not to be quashed in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. On a perusal of the final report, it is evident that the defacto

complainant’s specific case is that he had entrusted an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the third accused. It is also the specific case of the defacto complainant that petitioner, along with Sri. Samad and Sri. Naseer were conducting the business, all of whom had cheated the defacto complainant.

6. The contention now raised is that petitioner was only an

employee of the other accused which is not borne by any document produced by the petitioner. Even otherwise, there are no reliable materials for this Court come to a conclusion that petitioner has no involvement in the offence alleged. On the other hand, prima facie, the prosecution has alleged that petitioner was conducting the business and that the amount was handed over by the defacto complainant to the petitioner himself. In such circumstances, since the contention now raised fall within the realm of disputed facts, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to interfere with the final report cannot be exercised.

-:5:- Accordingly, I find no merit in this criminal miscellaneous case and it is dismissed. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE Jka/20.05.24 -:6:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6618/2022 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO. 1895 OF 2011 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C NO. 170/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 09.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE SENBAIR EXPORTS AND TRAVELS MANPOWER RECRUITMENT TO THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 27.02.2010 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST ACCUSED TO THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties JAMES vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas