Kotta Muhammed Vs. Sub Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1093249
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnOct-09-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
AppellantKotta Muhammed
RespondentSub Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice thomas p.joseph wednesday, the9h dayof october201317th aswina, 1935 bail appl..no. 6649 of 2013 ------------------------------- crime no. 2190/2013 of perumbavoor police station , ernakulam .. applicant/2nd accused:-: --------------------------------------------- kotta muhammed, aged61years, s/o.mammunni haji, asari thodi house, nediyiruppu p.o., malappuram district, pin - 673 638. by advs.sri.g.hariharan sri.praveen.h. respondents/complainant and state:-: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. sub inspector of police, perumbavoor police station, ernakulam district - 683 542.2. state of kerala, represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam, pin - 682 031. r1 & r2 by public prosecutor smt. laliza t.y. this bail application having come up for admission on0910-2013, the court on the same day passed the following: kss thomas p. joseph, j --------------------------------------- b.a.no.6649 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- dated this the 9th day of october, 2013 order petitioner is the second accused, in crime no.2190 of 2013 of the perumbavoor police station for the offences punishable under sections 403, 405, 406, 408, 465, 471 and 120b of the indian penal code.2. the first accused is the managing director and the de facto complainant, the director of a company. it is alleged that the first accused created false documents and cheated the de facto complainant by selling the property of the company to the petitioner for a lesser price.3. learned counsel submits that the allegations are false and that it is stated in the complaint that first accused and the de facto complainant are the only directors of the company. grievance of the de facto complainant is that he had not signed the resolution dated 26.09.2012 authorizing the first accused to sell property of the company. petitioner has nothing to do with the internal affairs of the company. he purchased the property of the company for valid consideration. it is submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. b.a.no.6649 of 2013 2 4. i have heard the learned public prosecutor also. it is submitted that according to the de facto complainant, property of the company was sold to the petitioner for a lesser price, apart from other allegations made in the complaint.5. having regard to the circumstances of the case i am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. the application is disposed of as under. (i) petitioner shall report to the officer investigating crime no.2190 of 2013 of perumbavoor police station on 21.10.2013 for interrogation. (ii) in case interrogation is not completed that day, the officer concerned may direct the petitioner to appear before him on the day(s) and time directed by him. (iii) in case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on the date of arrest itself. (iv) on such production, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each b.a.no.6649 of 2013 3 to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions: (a) petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when directed by him for interrogation. (b) petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. sd/- thomas p. joseph, judge as /true copy/ p.a.to judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE9H DAYOF OCTOBER201317TH ASWINA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 6649 of 2013 ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 2190/2013 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM .. APPLICANT/2ND ACCUSED:-: --------------------------------------------- KOTTA MUHAMMED, AGED61YEARS, S/O.MAMMUNNI HAJI, ASARI THODI HOUSE, NEDIYIRUPPU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 638. BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:-: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542.

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0910-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J --------------------------------------- B.A.No.6649 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2013 ORDER

Petitioner is the second accused, in Crime No.2190 of 2013 of the Perumbavoor Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 405, 406, 408, 465, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The first accused is the Managing Director and the de facto complainant, the Director of a company. It is alleged that the first accused created false documents and cheated the de facto complainant by selling the property of the Company to the petitioner for a lesser price.

3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are false and that it is stated in the complaint that first accused and the de facto complainant are the only Directors of the company. Grievance of the de facto complainant is that he had not signed the resolution dated 26.09.2012 authorizing the first accused to sell property of the company. Petitioner has nothing to do with the internal affairs of the Company. He purchased the property of the Company for valid consideration. It is submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. B.A.No.6649 of 2013 2 4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. It is submitted that according to the de facto complainant, property of the company was sold to the petitioner for a lesser price, apart from other allegations made in the complaint.

5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. The application is disposed of as under. (i) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating Crime No.2190 of 2013 of Perumbavoor Police Station on 21.10.2013 for interrogation. (ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, the officer concerned may direct the petitioner to appear before him on the day(s) and time directed by him. (iii) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on the date of arrest itself. (iv) On such production, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each B.A.No.6649 of 2013 3 to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions: (a) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when directed by him for interrogation. (b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE AS /True Copy/ P.A.to Judge