High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed

Prakash Chand v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.1284 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date
2014-06-09
Court Decision / Holding
Petition dismissed; inherent jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. 482 not invoked; Annexures-10 and 11 not quashed; prima facie case found against the petitioner.
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Prakash Chand

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Raju Jose Kalariyil

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri K.B. Arunkumar
  • • Sri T.A. Joy

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor SMT. Bindu Gopinath
  • • Sri T.K. RajesKumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

Prakash Chand, the 3rd accused in MP 6350/2009, challenges Annexures-10 and 11 in Crime No. 1438/2009 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam City, registered under sections 420, 406 and 120B r/w.34 IPC. In Crl.M.C. 1284 of 2012 under section 482 Cr.P.C., he contends that Annexure-10 was filed to counter a Bangalore case, that the alleged occurrence and the alleged misconduct occurred at Bangalore, and that Ernakulam has no territorial jurisdiction; a Bangalore case (C.C. No.14921/09) is cited as supporting this argument. He further asserts that Annexure-10 was filed on an experimental basis and that pursuing trial would amount to an abuse of process, thus warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash. The 2nd respondent, the defacto complainant, maintains that there was a legitimate business transaction with the petitioner, involving M/s. R.K. Apparels Ventures (P) Ltd, and that the accusations of misappropriation and cheating, amounting to substantial financial loss (around Rs. 70 lakhs), justify investigation and continuation of the proceedings. The High Court cites State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal to outline when inherent jurisdiction may be invoked, emphasizing prima facie satisfaction and avoidance of abuse of process. After considering the materials, the court holds that a prima facie case exists against the petitioner and dismisses the petition, refusing to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash Annexures-10 and-11.

Provisions of Law Cited

Cr.P.C. 482Cr.P.C. 156(3)Cr.P.C. 155(2)IPC 420IPC 406IPC 120B r/w 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. 482 to prevent abuse of process of court and secure ends of justice
  • Bhajanlal principles for exercising inherent jurisdiction (the seven tests)
  • Abuse of process of court
  • Prima facie test for invoking jurisdiction

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicant contends that Annexure-10/11 were filed to counter blast a Bangalore case, that the alleged occurrence occurred in Bangalore, and that this Court has no jurisdiction; Annexure-10 was filed only as an experiment and would amount to abuse of the court’s process; therefore, inherent jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. 482 should be invoked to quash the documents and prevent unnecessary proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that there was a genuine business relationship and financial dealings between the parties, with alleged misappropriation and cheating causing substantial loss; Annexure-10 was lodged to pursue a legitimate investigation; the allegations are sufficient to warrant continued proceedings; the court should consider prima facie case and not ordinarily entertain a request to quash in the absence of clear lack of offence.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal1992 SCC (Cr) 426PositiveCited to establish the criteria for invoking inherent jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. 482, including assessing prima facie offence, abuse of process, and ends of justice.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Prakash Chand v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1284 of 2012** **----------------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER IN MP 6350/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 1438/2009 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **-----------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED IN MP.6350/2009 IN FINAL REPORT NO.1973/11 BEFORE CJM, ERNAKULAM:** **---------------------------** **PRAKASH CHAND, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.PRATAP CHAND, PROPRIETOR, M/S.P.B.FABRIQUE INC, NO.5 & 6, BOMBAY ANAND BHAVAN, CHICKPET, BALGALORE-53.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.T.A.JOY** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN MP.6350/2009 BEFORE CJM, ERNAKULAM:** **----------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.** **2. RAJU JOSE KALARIYIL, AGED 42 YEARS,** - **KADAYIL HOUSE, PADUVA ROAD, KADATHURUTHY VILLAGE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.R.K.APPARELS VENTURE PVT.LTD, REGISTERED AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DD VASTRA MAHAL, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM-11.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1284 of 2012 ----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE CREDIT INVOICE DATE 12.01.2009** **ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF HE CREDIT INVOICE DATED 14.01.2009** **ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE CREDIT INVOICE DATED 09.02.2009 ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE CREDIT INVOICE DATED 16.02.2009 ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE CREDIT INVOICE DATED 02.03.2009 ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 04.06.2009** **ANNEXURE A7 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.14920/09 BEFORE ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE,BANGALORE.** **ANNEXURE A8 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.14921/09** **ANNEXURE A9 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.14922/09** **ANNEXURE A10 COPY OF THE M.P.6350/2009 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEXURE A11 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO1973/11 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,ERNAKULAM.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **PJ** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1284 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of June, 2014 ## **ORDER** This is a petition filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-10 and 11 in Crime No.1438/2009 of Central Police Station, Kochi City, which was registered u/s.420, 406, 120B r/w.34 IPC. Annexure-10 complaint was filed by the 2[nd] respondent before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, which was forwarded to the Central Police Station, Ernakulam for investigation u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner, who is the 3[rd] accused in the above crime, contended that Annexure-10 complaint was filed only to counter blast the case filed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the place of occurrence in both cases is at Bangalore and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint. There is also a case pending as C.C.No.14921/2009 before Additional Chief Metropolitan, Bangalore. After filing the above case, Annexure-10 complaint Crl.M.C.No.1284/12 2 was filed on experimental basis. Therefore, if trial is proceeded, it is only a mere abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, he prays to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. 2. The allegation of the 2[nd] respondent in Annexure10 complaint was that he had business transaction with the accused in the above case. He is conducting a business firm namely, R.K. Apparels Ventures (P) Ltd, which is having its registered office at D.D. Vastra Mahal, Market Road, Ernakulam. He is doing business of providing fabric, accessories for bulk production of garments and also have a brand name 'RIIFT' by doing ready made garment business, which is well known in South India and all over India. He is the Managing Director of the firm. The company is having deal with the 1[st] accused from 27.6.2007 and thereafter the 2[nd] respondent executed a job work agreement with the 1[st] accused on 2.2.2009. The 2[nd] respondent used to purchase textile goods from the petitioner's firm M/s.P.B. Fabrique Inc. There was also an agreement to the effect that samples are to be submitted and got approved before taking up the bulk production, which was not done by the 1[st] accused and Crl.M.C.No.1284/12 3 thereby cheated him with the support of accused 2 to 4. The 1[st] accused also did not deliver the goods as agreed and by misutilising the stock of the company, he made huge financial loss to the 2[nd] respondent. The 1[st] accused in support of accused 2 to 4 took money from the 2[nd] respondent's firm and misappropriated it. Thereby, he sustained a loss nearly Rs.70 lakhs. In the circumstances, he filed Annexure-10 complaint against the petitioner and other accused. Hence, this petition. 3. The inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, this Court would not ordinarily conduct an enquiry with regard to the evidence produced before Court as to whether it is reliable or not or whether it is sufficient for a conviction. At this stage, this court is bound to consider the prima facie satisfaction of a case. Apex Court in _**State of Haryana** v_ . _**Bhajanlal**_ , [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] held as follows: “(1) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused.(2)Where Crl.M.C.No.1284/12 4 the allegations in the FIR of other materials do not constitute a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police under Section 156(1) of the code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2). (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected thereon do not disclose the commission of any offence. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence but constitute only non-cognizable offence to which no investigation is permitted by the police without the order of Magistrate under Section 155(2). (5) Where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Statute concerned (under which the proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or in the statute concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accuse with a view to spite him due to private and personal vengeance. 4. I have considered the averments in this petition. The facts and circumstances in this case show that there was business transaction between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent and thereby committed huge financial loss to the 2[nd] respondent. Even though the petitioner contended that cause of action of the case has arisen in Bangalore, nothing Crl.M.C.No.1284/12 5 was brought before me to consider that there is no jurisdiction for entertaining Annexure-10 complaint. Moreover, there is no facts highlighted before me to invoke the inherent jurisdiction in this matter. Hence, I am of the opinion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and other accused. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.1284/12 6