Jayaprakasan P. v. Station House Officer, Cherpu Police Station, Thrissur; Mrs. Anju Amareesh

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1827 of 2018** **CC 2980/2017 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THRISSUR CRIME NO. 410/2017 OF CHERPU POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER:** **JAYAPRAKASAN P., S/O M.S.NAIR, CHIEF MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, THRISSUR.** **BY ADVS. SMT.K.S.SANTHI SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| |---|---| ||**CHERPU POLICE STATION, (DISTRICT) THRISSUR,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA.**| |**2**|**MRS.ANJU AMAREESH,**| ||**W/O AMAREESH, TRIPAKKAL HOUSE, VENGINISSERY,**| ||**PARALAM P.O.**| **R1 SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 1827 of 2018** **2** ## **ORDER** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for brevity) with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.2980 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur. In the aforesaid crime, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. 3. According to the prosecution, on 23.09.2016 at about 11 a.m. the petitioner herein, who is the Chief Manager of the Central Bank of India, trespassed into the residential home of the de facto complainant allegedly for realizing the amount due from the husband of the de facto complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner threatened the lady that if the amount due was not settled, proceedings would be initiated before the criminal court and her properties would be attached. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would **Crl.MC.No. 1827 of 2018** **3** contend that the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is clearly an abuse of process. The husband of the de facto complainant, one Amaresh, was having a savings bank account with the Pallickal Branch of the Central Bank of India. On 30.07.2016, a cheque for a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- was presented by the husband. The cheque was a non CTS cheque and it was, therefore, sent to the Thrissur Branch of the Central Bank, for the purpose of clearance. On 09.08.2016, the said cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and the husband of the de facto complainant was duly intimated. However, by that time, Amaresh had withdrawn a sum of Rs.4,79,855/-, which was wrongly credited to his account. The officers of the Bank immediately contacted Amaresh and requested him to pay back the amount overdrawn from the account. When he refused to do so, the petitioner, who is the Chief Manager, along with Mrs. Sreeja, who was the Assistant Manager, visited Amaresh at his home on 23.09.2016 and requested him to pay back the amount. In spite of the fervent request, no amount was paid. In the said circumstances, O.S. No.496 of 2017 was filed by the Bank against Amaresh on 2.2.2017 and a conditional order of attachment was obtained. On **Crl.MC.No. 1827 of 2018** **4** 7.2.2017, when the Ameen attempted to serve the attachment, he was obstructed and immediately thereafter, Annexure-3 report was submitted by the Ameen before the Court. On the strength of the said report, by order dated 7.4.2017, the learned Additional Munsiff had directed the Station House Officer to provide necessary assistance to the Ameen to effect the attachment. It was after institution of the suit and after the attachment order was attempted to be served by the Ameen, a complaint was lodged on 9.4.2017 alleging that on 23.9.2016 at 11 a.m., the petitioner trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the de facto complainant and abused her for not settling the dues of her husband. 5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Though notice was served on the 2[nd] respondent, She has not cared to enter appearance. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced. The sequence of events would reveal that the Chief Manager of the Central Bank had gone to the house of the de facto complainant to request that **Crl.MC.No. 1827 of 2018** **5** the amount wrongly credited to the account of her husband should be repaid. This was on 23.09.2016. Immediately thereafter, Annexure-2 suit was laid and an attachment order was obtained. This fact is clear from Annexure-3 order dated 07.02.2017. It is clear from the report of Ameen that he was obstructed on 21.02.2017 when he attempted to serve the attachment order. Annexure-5 order passed by the learned Munsiff would show that the Ameen was provided police aid. It was on 09.04.2017, a complaint was lodged stating that on 23.09.2016, the petitioner had trespassed into the courtyard and criminally intimidated the de facto complainant. Having considered the relevant facts, I am of the view that the criminal proceedings initiated against the Chief Manager of the Central Bank is manifestly attended with mala fides. 8. The inherent power has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously only when such exercise is justified by the tests laid out in the section namely, to give effect to the order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power can be exercised _ex debito justitiae_ to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which court **Crl.MC.No. 1827 of 2018** **6** exists. In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has not to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. (see **State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy and others** [1997 (2) SCC 699]). 9. Having gone through the sequence of events and the nature of allegations, it is clear that criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner to spite him and for instituting a suit **Crl.MC.No. 1827 of 2018** **7** for realizing the public money due to the Bank. The prosecution is malafide, untenable and is for the purpose of harassing the petitioner. I have no doubt that this is an eminently fit case where this Court will be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner to prevent abuse of process of the court. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-7 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C. No. 2980 of 2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur are quashed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** DSV/- **Crl.MC.No. 1827 of 2018** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.410/17 DATED 9.4.17. ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.496/17 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT AND REPORT OF THE AMEEN DATED 7.2.17. ANNEXURE 4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY MRS. SHJAILA, MOTHER OF AMARESH BEFORE CHERPU POLICE STATION DATED 19.2.17.** **ANNEXURE 5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.3660/17 IN OS NO.496/17 DATED 7.4.17. ANNEXURE 6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.3667/17 IN OS NO.496/17 DATED 7.4.17. ANNEXURE 7: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 12.8.17.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE