V.ANANTHI IYER v. STATE OF KERALA and R. SURYANARAYANA IYER

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/28TH PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2533 of 2012** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **C.C.NO. 126/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA -------------------** ## **PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** **V.ANANTHI IYER, AGED 50 YEARS,** **W/O. B.R.S.MONI IYER, REVATHIMADOM, SAMOOHAM COMPOUND, LALAM KARA, PALA P.O., LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR SRI.TOM THOMAS THRIKKAKARA** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REP.BY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2. R.SURYANARAYANA IYER, AGED 57 YEARS,** **S/O. RAMAKRISHNA IYER, MANALOOR THEKKEMADOM, PULIYANNUR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GITHESH.R R2 BY SRI.R.SURYANARAYANA IYER,PARTY-IN-PERSON** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **Crl.MC.No. 2533 of 2012** ## **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEX.A: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO 387/2000 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALA DATED 06/11/2000.** **ANNEX.B: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO. 387/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALA DATED 06/12/2000.** - **ANNEX.C: PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A.NO. 736/05 & 737/05 IN O.S.NO. 387/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALA DATED 14/02/2006.** - **ANNEX.D: PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR NO.735/06 FINAL REPORT DATED 12/12/2006.** **ANNEX.E: PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2DN RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, PALA DATED 18/12/2008.** **ANNEX.F: PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR NO.719/08 DATED 31.10.2009.** **ANNEX.G: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C)NO.15280/09 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26.06.2009.** - **ANNEX.H: CERTIFIED COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, PALA DATED 22/09/2009.** - **ANNEX.I: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMBERSHIP CARD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE SAMOOHAMADOM DATED 29.09.1998.** - **ANNEX.J: PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MEMBERSHIP REGISTER OF THE SAMOOHAMADAM DATED NIL.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** - **ANNEX.R1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE BYE-LAW OF LALAM AMBALAPURATH BRAHMANA SAMOOHAM TRUST.** **ANNEX.R2: PHOTOCOPY OF MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE BRAHMANA SAMOOHAM TRUST DATED 20-12-1998.** ## **ANNEX.R3: PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTERED DOCUMENT.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.2533 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is field u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash AnnexureH in C.C.No.126/2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala for offence punishable u/s.403, 408, 468 and 120 (b) of IPC. The above case was filed by the 2[nd] respondent, who is the member of Lalam Ambalapurath Brahmana Samooham, against the petitioner and 10 others alleging that the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent are members of the above trust, which has property and building in Lalam Village. The accused in the above case misappropriated the funds and property. In the circumstances, the 2[nd] respondent filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala as C.M.P.No.10097/2006, which was forwarded to investigation u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police Crl.M.C.No.2533/12 2 referred that case. Against that, he filed another complaint C.M.P.No.7674/2008, which was also referred by the Police. Subsequently, suppressing the above facts, the 2[nd] respondent preferred the present case. The petitioner contended that the present case was preferred, after suppressing the earlier cases and the allegations in the above complaint are the same, which was raised in the earlier cases. If trial is conducted, it amounts to an abuse of process of Court. Hence, he approached this court to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. 2. The inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only to make such orders necessary to “give effect to any order” under this code or to prevent “abuse of the process” of any court or to secure “the ends of justice”. This power cannot be invoked naturally in a matter where it is covered by a specific provision of the code. Therefore it means that if the matter in question is not covered by any provision of the code, it comes into operation, for the three purposes Crl.M.C.No.2533/12 3 ## mentioned above. 3. It is clear from the allegation that a civil suit filed by the 2[nd] respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court was disposed of by that Court. Annexures-B and C are the supporting documents in the above civil suit. Annexures-D and F are the F.I.Rs in Crime Nos.735/2006 and 719/2008 of Pala Police Station respectively. The FIRs were referred by the Pala Police, after investigation. Subsequently, the 2[nd] respondent preferred Annexure-H complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala alleging the same incident. Cognizance was taken against the petitioner and 10 others. The Court had issued summons to the petitioner and other accused and accordingly, they appeared before Court and took bail. Even though the earlier cases were referred by the Police, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and other accused in the above case. In such a Crl.M.C.No.2533/12 4 situation, the trial Court had proceeded with Anneuxre-H. When prima facie case is made out, it is difficult to interfere at that stage. Apex Court in _**Madhu Limaye v.**_ ## _**State of Maharashtra**_ [(1977) 4 SCC 551] held as follows: The following principles in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions: (1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. (2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted n any other provision of the Code. 4. The facts and circumstances of this case show that this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. When prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to challenge the matter in the trial Court. If that be the position, I am of the view that there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.2533/12 5 Crl.M.C.No.2533/12 6