Jayanthi Krishnan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jan 04, 2023

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1374711

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/1374711
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.
Decided On: Jan 04, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/4365/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jayanthi Krishnan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the period from 23.12.2015 to 28.02.2016, the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of rs.2,30,327/- by creating falsedocuments. it is alleged that using the false documents the accused persons collected amounts from the customers of the de facto complainant company directly and did not appropriate the same to the accounts of the complainant company. annexure a7 is the fir and this crl mc is filed to quash the same and all further proceedings pursuant to the same.3. the main contention put forward by the petitioner is that, the proceedings are initiated as a retaliation against her crl.m.c.no.4365/20 4since she submitted several complaints against some of the persons in the management of the company. it is also contended by the petitioner that there are no materials to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner.4. the learned public prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant points out that, as against the petitioner and the other accused, total four crimes were registered, all of them containing similarallegations. in all the other cases, the investigation has been completed, final reports were submitted, and cognizance was taken by the judicial first class magistrate court-iii, thrissur. it is also pointed out that, in crl.m.c.no.9280 of 2019, filed by the petitioner challenging fir registered in crime no.1116 of 2018 of ollur police station, this court has already declined the prayer on the ground that the matter requires investigation.5. after considering all the relevant aspects, i am of the view that the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings. the challenge in crl.m.c.no.4365/20 5this case is against the fir and what is relevant for consideration as regards the challenge against an fir, is whether the allegations contained in the complaint reveal a cognizable offence or not. if the allegation/information indicates the commission of cognizable.....

Full Judgment

Crl.M.C.No.4365/20 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 14TH POUSHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 4365 OF 2020 PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: JAYANTHI KRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.MANI V.K., AISWARYA, VELIYANOOR, THRISSUR-680 563. BY ADVS. P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR SRI.PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH) SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN SHRI.PRASOON SUNNY SHRI.RAHUL RAJ P. RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PINCODE-682 031 THROUGH THE SI OF POLICE, OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. Crl.M.C.No.4365/20 2 2 S.AJITHKUMAR, DGM IN CHARGE, PRODUCTION DIVISION, KERALA SIDCO LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CANTONMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, PIN-695 019. BY ADVS. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR SRI.N.O.JOHN SMT.SEENA C -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.4365/20 3

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.129 of 2019 of Ollur Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

2. The petitioner is an employee of Kerala Small

Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO). The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused is that, during the period from 23.12.2015 to 28.02.2016, the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,30,327/- by creating false

documents. It is alleged that using the false documents the accused persons collected amounts from the customers of the de facto complainant company directly and did not appropriate the same to the accounts of the complainant company. Annexure A7 is the FIR and this Crl MC is filed to quash the same and all further proceedings pursuant to the same.

3. The main contention put forward by the petitioner is that, the proceedings are initiated as a retaliation against her Crl.M.C.No.4365/20 4

since she submitted several complaints against some of the persons in the management of the company. It is also contended by the petitioner that there are no materials to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant points out that, as against the petitioner and the other accused, total four crimes were registered, all of them containing similar

allegations. In all the other cases, the investigation has been completed, final reports were submitted, and cognizance was taken by the Judicial First Class Magistrate court-III, Thrissur. It is also pointed out that, in Crl.M.C.No.9280 of 2019, filed by the petitioner challenging FIR registered in Crime No.1116 of 2018 of Ollur Police Station, this Court has already declined the prayer on the ground that the matter requires investigation.

5. After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings. The challenge in Crl.M.C.No.4365/20 5

this case is against the FIR and what is relevant for consideration as regards the challenge against an FIR, is whether the allegations contained in the complaint reveal a cognizable offence or not. If the allegation/information indicates the commission of cognizable offences, it is a matter to be investigated, and no interference is warranted. The question whether any materials to substantiate the said allegation is there or not, is irrelevant at this stage. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner about the harassment meted out to her by the management is beyond the scope of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage. Malafides alone cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings when there are materials/ allegations suggestive of the commission of cognizable offences. When the records placed before me are considered in that perspective, I am of the view that the matter requires investigation and therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain this Crl.M.C.

Crl.M.C.No.4365/20 6 In such circumstances, this Crl. M.C. is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. would not preclude the petitioner from challenging the final report, if any, filed by the police after the completion of the investigation.

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/5.1.23 Crl.M.C.No.4365/20 7 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4365/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY PETITIONER DATED 27.7.2018. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.0839/2018 OF PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION DATED 27.7.2018. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR CRIME NO.642/2018 CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION DATED 18.9.2018.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER

NO.2964/VG/2018 DATED 10.12.2018. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.41761/2018 DATED 10.1.2019. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.9.2019 FROM ENQUIRY OFFICER INTIMATING HEARING. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.9714/2020 DATED 15.5.2020. ANNEXURE A8 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED AS

CRIME NO.129 OF 2019 CRIME NO.129/2019 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.1.2019.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.12.2018 MADE BY THE SUPPLIER. Crl.M.C.No.4365/20 8 ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO.32258/2019 FILED BY THE SUPPLIER IN THIS REGARD (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) DATED 27.11.2019. ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPIES OF OLD STAMPED RECEIPTS ISSUED BY OTHER EMPLOYEES IN SIDCO EARLIER DATED NIL.

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties Jayanthi Krishnan vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.