Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Praveenkumar vs The State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2019

Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar

Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

   WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 3RD ASWINA, 1941

                      Crl.MC.No.4724 OF 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2059/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                     OF FIRST CLASS ,CHITTUR

    CRIME NO.892/2014 OF Kollengode Police Station , Palakkad


PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

             PRAVEENKUMAR
             S/O. BALAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
             CHULLIYARMEDU, MUTHALAMADA,
             CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
             SRI.K.GIRISH

RESPONDENTS/STATE/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

      1      THE STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

      2      ABDUL SAMAD
             S/O. SHEIK MUSTHAFA,
             AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NANDANKIZHAYA,
             ANAMARI, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM,
             KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 001

             R2 BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
             R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VIBHU
             R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.YOHANNAN
             R2 BY ADV. SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED
             R2 BY ADV. SHRI.THASBEER AB
             SMT. PUSHPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
25.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-

Crl.MC.No.4724 OF 2018




                            ORDER

The petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No.2059/2014 on the files of the court below. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 17 of the Money lenders Act.

2. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as follows:-

The petitioner collected four blanks cheques, two revenue stamp papers and four blank stamp papers from the second respondent at the time when the second respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.1,13,000/- from the petitioner. Even though the second respondent repaid an amount of Rs.64,000/-, A2 and A3, in connivance with the petitioner, filed -3- Crl.MC.No.4724 OF 2018 prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act against the second respondent, utilising the blank signed cheques obtained by the petitioner from the second respondent.

3. The petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C. praying for quashing the final report and further proceedings against the petitioner in the above said case.

4. Heard.

5. No material is available before the Court to indicate that the petitioner is engaged in the business of advancing and releasing of loans. A single instance of transaction of money would not make a person a 'money lender'. There is absolutely no material before the court to indicate that the petitioner is a money lender as defined under Section 2(7) of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. In this case, no material had been seized in the house search of the petitioner to indicate that the petitioner had any money transaction as alleged by the second respondent. Therefore, there is no material to -4- Crl.MC.No.4724 OF 2018 indicate that the petitioner had any transaction even with the second respondent. Having gone through the relevant inputs, it appears that the materials available before the court are not sufficient to hold that the petitioner is a money lender and hence the offence under the Kerala Money Lenders Act is not attracted in this case. There is also no material before the court to constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC. Admittedly, the cases initiated by accused Nos.2 and 3 against the second respondent herein, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, are pending. It appears that the present case was initiated by the second respondent only as a counter blast to shield the prosecution initiated against the second respondent by the second and the third accused. In the said -5- Crl.MC.No.4724 OF 2018 circumstances, no purpose will be served even if the prosecution against the petitioner is permitted to be continued. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to quash the final report and further proceedings against the petitioner in the above said case, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed as above.

sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Nkr/26.09.19 -6- Crl.MC.No.4724 OF 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED C0PY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALATHUR.
ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.892/2014 REGISTERED BY THE KOLLENGODE POLICE ON 13.8.2014. ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT TAKEN ON FILE AS C.C.NO.2059/2014 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, CHITTUR.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL