Kerala High Court
Greenal Joseph. P vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2017
Author: K.Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2018 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 515 of 2018
-----------------------
CC 1106/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY.
CRIME NO. 1397/2017 OF ANGAMALI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL.
.......
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
------------------------
GREENAL JOSEPH. P,
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.P.F. JOSEPH(LATE),
PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, ARAVINDAKSHAN LANE,
PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682025,
FORMERLY BRANCH MANAGER,
SOUTH INDIA BANK, ANGAMALY NORTH BRANCH,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW DELHI.
BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ADVS.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
SRI.V.C.SARATH
SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN
SRI.C.JAYAKIRAN
SMT.POOJA PANKAJ
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031,
2. M.N. KRISHNANKUTTY NAMBEESAN,
AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBEESAN,
MUTTATH HOUSE, KOTHAKKULANGARA,
ANGAMALY, PIN - 683572.
R1 BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA
R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.SUNIL KUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
Crl.MC.No. 515 of 2018 ()
------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
----------------------
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO 1397/2017 OF
ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.1397/2017 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM RURAL.
ANNEXURE C TYPED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT PREFERRED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE COURT
OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,
ANGAMALY.
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER/COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY GEETHA BHAVAN TRUST TO THE MANAGER, SOUTH
INDIAN BANK, ANGAMALY BRANCH DATED 6/3/2017.
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION/LETTER ISSUED
GEETHA BHAAN TRUST TO THE MANAGER, SOUTH
INDIAN BANK, ANGAMALY BRANCH DATED 27/3/2017
ALONG WITH THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST
DATED 25/3/2017.
ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE
SOUTH INDIAN BANK TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM,RURAL DATED 27/6/2017.
ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
DATED 4/3/2017 CONVENED BY THE TRUST.
ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED DATED 28/5/1985.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
30.05.2018.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
--------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. NO.515 OF 2018
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2018
ORDER
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner is the third accused in C.C No.1106 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Angamaly. He was manager of the South Indian Bank at Angamaly. He along with two others have allegedly committed the offences under Sections 120B, 420 and 468 IPC. The second respondent was the managing trustee of Geetha Bhavan Trust. He filed Annexure-C complaint before the JFCM Court, Angamaly. The learned Magistrate forwarded it to the police u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C and thereupon the police registered the case. The allegation is that the first accused falsely claimed that he was the managing trustee and the second accused, a member of the Board of Trustees and that the second accused was the authorised signatory along with the secretary (one Sivankutty Nair) and the petitioner who had notice of the false claim honoured the cheques signed by the first and second accused and this was due to the conspiracy entered into between them and the petitioner. The proceedings are sought to be Crl.M.C. NO.515 OF 2018 2 quashed on the ground that the facts of the case do not attract any offence so far as the petitioner is concerned.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Though notice was served on the second respondent, he has not entered appearance.
5. The second respondent complainant was managing trustee of Geetha Bhavan Trust which maintains an account with the Angamaly branch of the South Indian Bank, of which the petitioner was the manager at the relevant time. The authorised signatories were the second respondent, who was the managing trustee and one P.R.Nalinakshakurup, who was the then secretary. It is alleged that the first and second accused made a false claim that they were elected managing trustee and a member of the Board of Trustees respectively and they falsely informed the bank that the first accused and one Sivankutty Nair who was allegedly elected secretary were authorised to sign cheques and other documents. When the second respondent came to know about it he sent a letter to the petitioner on 4.3.2017 requesting him not to effect any transaction without the signature of the second respondent. But ignoring it the petitioner honured two cheques signed by the first and second respondents on 3.4.2017. The allegation Crl.M.C. NO.515 OF 2018 3 of the petitioner is that he honoured the cheques because after the receipt of letter from the second respondent on 4.3.2017, the bank received Annexure-D and E communications. Annexure-D is a letter informing the bank that new office bearers were elected with effect from 4.3.2017 and the first accused became the managing trustee and one Sivankutty Nair the secretary. In Annexure-E letter the bank was informed that the new authorised signatories of the trust were the first accused, and K.V.Sivankutty Nair, the newly elected secretary. I have perused Annexure-D and E letters. They were written on the letter head of the trust and they bear the seal of the trust. So there was every reason for the petitioner to believe that at the new election the first and second accused became the managing trustee and member of the Board of Trustees respectively and the trust appointed the first accused and the newly elected secretary, Sivankutty Nair, its signatories. It is submitted that the election of the new office bearers has not at been challenged and it is they who have entered into transactions on behalf of the trust ever since the election in March 2017. It is very clear that the petitioner bona fide believed that the second respondent ceased to be the managing trustee and the first accused and the newly elected secretary, Sivankutty, were authorised to sign cheques and other documents on behalf of the trust. In these circumstances it is only to be Crl.M.C. NO.515 OF 2018 4 held that the facts of the case do not attract any offence so far as the petitioner is concerned. The proceedings as against him are liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C No.1106 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Angamaly are quashed in respect of the petitioner.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE pm