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

Mehroof Ifthikar Manalody vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 April, 2012

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                             PRESENT:

                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

        MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

                                 WP(C).No. 35740 of 2017 (N)
                                 -----------------------------------------


PETITIONER(S) :
--------------------------

                     MEHROOF IFTHIKAR MANALODY,
                     S/O.LATE ABOOBACKER HAJI, AGED 45 YEARS, 25/1(23/1913),
                     SHAKEELA MANZIL, POKKUNNU.P.O, CALICUT.


                     BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
                          ADV.SRI.K.RAKESH




RESPONDENT(S) :
-----------------------------

          1.         THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                     CB CID EOW III, PUTHIYARA.P.O, KOZHIKKODE,
                     PIN-673 004.

          2.         THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                     CUSBA CIRCLE, KOZHIKKODE CITY,
                     KOZHIKKODE, PIN-673 001.

          3.         V.P.ABDUL KAREEM,
                     S/O.V.P.ABU, SAHIRA MANZIL, CHEMBAYILPARAMBA,
                     POKKUNNU.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 013.


                     R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SHEEBA


           THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
           ON 04-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
           THE FOLLOWING:


Msd.

WP(C).No. 35740 of 2017 (N)
------------------------------------------

                                            APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT P1          TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.IN CRIME NO.766/2012 OF
                    THE KOZHIKKODE CUSBA POLICE STATION.

EXHIBIT P2          TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.IN CRIME NO.240/2012 OF THE CUSBA
                     POLICE STATION DATED 17.04.2012.

EXHIBIT P3          TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,
                    KOZHIKKODE IN O.S.2/2011 DATED 31/03/2016.

EXHIBIT P4          TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO. 366/2012 OF THE SUB
                    COURT, KOZHIKKODE DATED 30.09.2016.

EXHIBIT P5          TRUE COY OF THE REQUISITION MADE BY
                    THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK.

EXHIBIT P6          TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION MADE BY
                    THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE FEDERAL BANK.

EXHIBIT P7          TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 240/2012 OF
                    THE CUSBA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.

EXHIBIT P8          TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CRIME NO.766/2012
                    OF THE CUSBA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

                                                NIL

                                                         //TRUE COPY//


                                                         P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.



                       B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

        `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                W.P.(C) No.35740 of 2017 N
        `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
           Dated this the 4th day of December, 2017

                          J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Two crimes were registered against the petitioner, one through Ext.P2 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 72 and 85 of the Information Technology Act, and the second one through Ext.P8 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 469, 471, 406, 417, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 628 and 630 of the Companies Act, and Sections 102 and 103 of the Trademarks Act.

2. As far as the offences covered by Ext.P2 is concerned, the allegation is that the petitioner could procure a copy of the mobile phone bills of the de facto complainant, WPC.35740/2017 : 2 : for which the de facto complainant had preferred a complaint before the District Police Chief, which culminated in the registration of Ext.P2.

3. Regarding Ext.P8, the allegation is that the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the Company named M/s.Glosoft Technologies Private Limited, of which the de facto complainant is the Chairman and share holder of 50% shares, along with the accused, committed forgery in the records of the Company and misused the trademark, trade name and logo of the Company and thereby committed cheating.

4. Apart from making the said wild allegations in Ext.P8 through a private complaint based on which Ext.P8 was registered, the amount allegedly misappropriated have not been quantified anywhere in the complaint.

5. Presently, the investigating officer has effected the freezing of the bank accounts of the Company, thereby making it difficult for the Company to pull on. Let the WPC.35740/2017 : 3 : investigation of these two crimes go on. It seems that there is absolutely no necessity for freezing the bank accounts of the Company in these matters. The investigating officer shall continue with the investigation and file the final report, expeditiously.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed and Exts.P5 and P6 orders are quashed.

Sd/-

(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/04/12 // True Copy // PS to Judge