Ranjini vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Apr 09, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1302254

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/1302254
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a. Badharudeen
Decided On: Apr 09, 2024
Case Number: Crl.MC/7677/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ranjini

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....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.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned public prosecutor.3. the learned counsel for the petitioners submittedthat 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 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.4. in this connection, the learned counsel for thepetitioners 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.5. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant that the 2nd 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 the remaining rs.1.5 lakh was received by accused nos.1 and 3 while the 2nd accused was abroad.6. on perusal of the protest complaint and the orderof 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. in the result, this criminal miscellaneous case stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to raise.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946 CRIME NO.139/2014 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CC NO.509 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANCHERY PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: 1 RANJINI AGED 49 YEARS THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI - 682005 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 BY ADVS. DENIZEN KOMATH RENU B RAJ. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: 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 BY ADVS. M.H.HANIS P.M.JINIMOL(K/1092/2004) T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR(K/1181/2010) NANCY MOL P.(K/650/2012) Q SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 9th day of April, 2024 This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of

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.

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

3. 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 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.

4. In this connection, the learned counsel for the

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.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the de

facto complainant that the 2nd 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 the remaining Rs.1.5 lakh was received by accused Nos.1 and 3 while the 2nd accused was abroad.

6. On perusal of the protest complaint and the order

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. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to raise their contentions during trial. Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7677/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANCHERRY AS CMP NO. 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

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties Ranjini vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a. Badharudeen