IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3796 of 2005(D)
1. C.A.REJIMON @ SHAJAHAN,S/O.ALLIYAR KUNJU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.K.KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. NAJEEB, S/O.SAIDU MOHAMMED,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.DEVADANAM
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/12/2006
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3796 of 2005
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of December 2006
O R D E R
The petitioner has come to this court with the prayer under
Section 482 Cr.P.C that the F.I.R, Annexure A4 registered on the basis
of Annexure A3 complaint filed by the respondent before the learned
Magistrate and which is referred to the police by the learned
Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C may be quashed.
2. The crux of the allegation raised in Annexure A3 complaint
is that the petitioner induced the complainant to believe that he would
discharge a legally enforcible debt/liability and persuaded him to
receive a cheque and to present the same in the bank for encashment.
This, he would not have done but with the representation that the
cheque if presented in the bank can be encashed. But it turned out
that the cheque was drawn on a closed account and the
misrepresentation was made fraudulently to induce the complainant
to accept the cheque.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations are totally false. The cheque was not actually issued to the
first respondent/complainant. It was issued to another person,
namely the second respondent herein. The first and the second
Crl.M.C.No.3796/06 2
respondents are acting in collusion. In these circumstances, the
complaint as also the F.I.R registered on the basis of the said
complaint are liable to the quashed. The learned counsel for the first
respondent submits that the first respondent has nothing to do with
the second respondent. In fact, the first respondent has initiated
another prosecution against the second respondent herein, who is
alleged to be a name lender for the petitioner/accused. In any view of
the matter, there are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, submits the learned counsel for
the respondent/complainant.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded
to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent. I find no merit
in the contention that the proceedings are liable to be quashed
invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I shall carefully avoid
any expression of opinion on merits. Suffice it to say that it is for the
police now to conduct the investigation and ascertain the truth and
take appropriate further action. The petitioner has already been
enlarged on bail, it is further submitted. In these circumstances, no
further directions in the interests of justice also appear to be
necessary.
Crl.M.C.No.3796/06 3
5. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is also
dismissed but I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this
Criminal Miscellaneous Case will not in any way fetter the rights of
the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the police and the
court at later stages.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.3796/06 4
R.BASANT, J
C.R.R.P.No.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF JULY 2006