Kerala High Court
Vinod vs The State Of Kerala Represented By The on 23 February, 2012
Author: P.S. Gopinathan
Bench: P.S.Gopinathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/4TH PHALGUNA 1933
Crl.MC.No. 4334 of 2011 ( )
---------------------------
CMP.3108/2011 OF SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM
(CRIME NO. 1113/2010 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DT.)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
---------------------------
VINOD, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN,
PONNOOS VILLA, KARIMPALOORKONOTHU CHERRY
PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, PUTHENKULAM P.O.
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
SMT.DHANYA S.DHARAN
SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA
RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
SUB-INSPECTOR, PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION THROUGH
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM.
2. NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
KALLUVATHUKKAL REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
(JOINT REGISTRAR), KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VBIJAYAN.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
CRL. M.C. 4334 OF 2011
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012.
O R D E R
In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner, who is the second accused in Crime No. 1113 of 2010 of Parippally Police station for offences under Sections 406, 421, 422 and 425 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code seeks an order to quash Annexure A2 FIR registered on the basis of Annexure A1 complaint which was forwarded to the investigating officer under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The allegation in the complaint is that the first accused mortgaged an item of property before the Co-operative bank and while the liability subsisting, the property was purchased by the petitioner with an intention to deceive the bank. According to the petitioner, he purchased the property long before the mortgage. Therefore, no offence is made out.
3. Having heard either side, I find that the question as to whether the sale in favour of the petitioner is before hypothication or not is a matter of evidence. Therefore, I find nothing to interfere with the process of investigation at this stage.
CRL. M.C. 4334/2011 2
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the investigating officer directed the petitioner to appear before him on all Wednesdays and Saturdays. The learned Government Pleader would submit that it is in pursuance to Annexure A5 order granting pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Judge, Kollam. Going by Annexure A5, I could not find any such direction. Adding to that, the case was registered on 7.1.2010. In the above circumstances, any more appearance of the petitioner before the investigating officer is not warranted.
In the result, Crl. M.C. is disposed of directing the investigating officer to complete the investigation at the earliest and file the final report. While filing the final report, the investigating officer shall consider the contention of the petitioner that he is a purchaser even before the hypothication. Investigating officer also may consider whether the offences alleged are made out against the petitioner even if he is a subsequent purchaser.
P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-