Kerala High Court
Sunimol V.U vs State Of Kerala on 28 September, 2015
Author: K. Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
FRIDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/9TH ASHADHA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 3921 of 2017 ()
---------------------------
CC.NO. 1012/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,KANJIRAPALLY
CRIME NO. 1275/2015 OF KANJIRAPALLYPOLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
--------------------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------
SUNIMOL V.U.,
AGED 40 YEARS,W/O. BIJU KURUVILLA,
NEDUMPARAMPIL HOUSE,
AMAYANOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL
SRI.A.KEVIN THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND CHARGE WITNESS (CW-4):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KANJIRAPALLYPOLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
2. THE MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED,
MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, OPPOSITE SARITHE CINEMA THEATRE,
BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI- 682 018
3. THE MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED,
KANJIRAPALLY BRANCH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
THODUPUZHA REGIONAL OFFICE,
THODUPUZHA -685 584
4. BINDHU BAHASKARAN @ BINDHU SHAJI,
NADUVILETTU, CHENNERKARA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANATHITTA- 689 641
2/-
-2-
Crl.MC.No. 3921 of 2017 ()
5. BINU BHASKARAN,
W/O. RAJEEV, MAMMIKUNNU BUNGALOW,
MUNDAKKAL WEST P.O, KOLLAM- 691 001
6. SURESH V.R.,
VECHOOL VEETTIL,
CHIRAKKADAVU EAST P.O, KOTTAYAM- 686 520
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
Crl.MC.No. 3921 of 2017 ()
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
--------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO THE PETITIONER
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM
DATED 28-09-2015
ANNEXURE AIII TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,KOTTAYAM ON 12-10-2015
ANNEXURE AIV TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANJIRAPALLY AND FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT LAID BY THE KANJIRAPALLY POLICE IN CRIME 1275/2015
AND TYPED COPY.
ANNEXURE AV CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY KANJIRAPALLY
POLICE WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANJIRAPPALLY AND HAD TAKEN THE CASE
INTO FILE AS C.C 1012/2016
ANNEXURE AVI NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY BINU BHASKARAN
DATED 20-02-2017
ANNEXURE AVII NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY BINDHU BHASKARAN
DATED 25-2-2017
ANNEXURE AVIII TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY SURESH,
S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN DATED 23-1-2017
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL
-----------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
--------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3921 of 2017
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2017
O R D E R
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2.Petitioner is the accused in CC No.1012/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kanjirapally. She is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 409, 419, 420, 465, 468 & 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the materials produced along with the final report do not disclose commission of any offence.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4.If the materials relied on by the prosecution in support of the final report do not disclose commission of any offence, the ordinary remedy of the accused is to plead for discharge in the trial court. Only if there are special Crl.M.C. No. 3921 of 2017 ..2..
circumstances, this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In this case, the existence of any special circumstance is not pleaded. So, the petitioner should plead for discharge in the trial court. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The petitioner may plead for discharge, if she is so advised.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE bka/-