Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 1757 OF 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 9/2013 OF CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/S: BALAKRISHNAN MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, VYTTILA BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, CHANDIGARH. BY ADV SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 JOBY A GEORGE S/O.ANTONY GEORGE, AINICKAL HOUSE, KALLUR P.O., PIN - 680317, ALAGAPPA NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.I.DINESH MENON SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA(PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
======================== ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November 2022
ORDER
Petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.No.09/2013 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, alleging offences punishable under Section 120(B), 409, 415, 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. According to the prosecution, the accused had conspired with
each other and induced the defacto complainant to believe that he will be made a partner in a firm by the name ‘Planwell Impex’ and thereafter made him to sign applications for obtaining a loan from the bank, where the 1 st accused was functioning as the Manager and obtained title deeds of property of the defacto complainant and kept the same as security, without his knowledge or consent and a joint account was started after creating a partnership agreement, forging his signature and submitted it to the bank and managed to obtain a loan of Rs.20,00,000/-, and on failure to repay the amount, caused the property of the petitioner to be attached and proceeded against and also caused to initiate proceedings against the defacto complainant for dishonour of the cheques and the accused together committed the offences alleged.
3. Pursuant to a private complaint filed on 25.08.2009, the learned
Magistrate referred the same for investigation and thereafter a crime was registered as FIR No.1933/2009 before the Ernakulam Central Police Station. On completion of investigation, a final report was filed, and cognizance was taken as C.C.No.09/2013 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernkaulam, which is pending.
4. Sri.T.K.Ajithkumar, learned Counsel contended that petitioner is
the unfortunate victim of machination plotted by accused Nos.2 and 3 and that, he had absolutely no involvement in the alleged crime. It was also submitted that as the Manger of the bank, petitioner had only acted on the basis of documents supplied and that he had no criminal intent of any nature. It was also submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, 2 nd and 3rd accused had even cleared the liability and the petitioner’s life had been destroyed for no fault of his. Learned Counsel also submitted that even going by the prosecution allegations, there is no evidence, whatsoever, to implicate the petitioner as an accused nor is there any material to prove his involvement in the alleged conspiracy and therefore, the proceedings against him in C.C.No.09/2013 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam is an abuse of the process of Court.
5. Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other
hand, contended that the nature of allegations prima facie indicate the involvement of petitioner, at least as a conspirator and therefore, this is a matter which can be considered only after the trial. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C must be exercised sparingly, with caution and only in exceptional cases . It was submitted that taking into reckoning the nature of allegations as brought out in the final report, including the Forensic Science Laboratory’s Report, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.PC. ought not be invoked in the present case.
6. I have considered the rival contentions.
7. The final report alleges that the petitioner had conspired with the
other accused to commit the offences alleged. The defacto complainant’s specific case as seen from Annexure ‘Q’ private complaint is that, he had never gone to the office of the bank and that the 1 st accused had assured that he needs to sign only in the blank papers, including the blank cheques which were signed and handed over to the 1st accused for the purpose of starting a business relating to computer hardware. It is the prosecution case that the accused had conspired and fabricated documents including the petitioner as a partner in another firm and even utilized his properties as a security for disbursing loan to that firm. The veracity of the above set of allegations can only be ascertained in a trial.
8. The exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to
be invoked only in exceptional circumstances, where, even if the entire prosecution allegations are admitted, the same would still, not make out a case against the accused. It can also be invoked in cases, where there are mala fides or when legally there is an interdiction in proceeding against the accused. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal
(1992) Supp 1 SCC 335, the scope of interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is limited and must be sparingly and cautiously be exercised
9. Having perused the final report and the allegations therein
and on an appreciation of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the view that the circumstances of the case do not warrant the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. Hence I find no merit in this Crl.M.C. and it is accordingly dismissed. sd/ BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jm/ APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1757/2013 PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure TRUE COPY OF THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OPENING FORM. Annexure ANNEXURE 'B' APPLICATION FOR ADVANCE TO TRADERS. Annexure ANNEXURE 'C' SANCTION TICKET FOR SECURED OVER
DRAFT DATED 1.12.2008. Annexure ANNEXURE 'D' DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 3.12.2008. Annexure ANNEXURE 'E' LETTER OF CONTINUITY DATED 3.12.2008. Annexure ANNEXURE 'F' TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP LETTER DATED 3.12.2008. Annexure ANNEXURE 'G' TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF HYPOTHECATION OF MOVABLES DATED 3.12.2008. Annexure ANNEXURE 'H' TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR OPEN CASH CREDIT DATED 3.12.2008. Annexure ANNEXURE 'I' TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF EQUITABLE MORTGAGE RELATING TO PROPERTY OWNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Annexure ANNEXURE 'J' TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO: 3949/ 2001 OF S.R.O MUKUNDAPURAM. Annexure ANNEXURE 'K' TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 5.12.2008. Annexure ANNEXURE 'L' TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT-CUM- UNDERTAKING. Annexure ANNEXURE 'M' TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 9.3.2009. Annexure ANNEXURE 'N' TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.3.2009. Annexure ANNEXURE 'O' TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S
13(2) OF THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT 2002 DATED 30.7.2009.
Annexure ANNEXURE 'P' TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 14/10/2009. Annexure ANNEXURE 'Q' TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Annexure ANNEXURE 'R' TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 1.9.2009 IN CRIME NO. 1933 OF 2009 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. Annexure ANNEXURE 'S' TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.9 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. Annexure ANNEXURE 'T' TRUE COPY OF THE FORENSIC REPORT . Annexure ANNEXURE 'U' TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLUR AND DEPOSITED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE BANK.