Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 7343 OF 2022 PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
NOORUDHEEN AGED 51 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED KUTTY HAJI, ORAVAKKAZHAYIL HOUSE, MARAYAMANGALAM P.O.,NELLAYA, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679335 BY ADV C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT
S /S TATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KAMBALAKKAD POLICE STATION, KAMBALAKKAD P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122 3 JAYESH.T S/O. UNNIMADHAVAN, MANAKATH HOUSE, MANAD P.O., MUTTIL, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OTHER PRESENT:
ADV C S HRITHWIK-SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2 Crl.M.C No. 7343 OF 2022 O R D E R Dated this the 16th day of November, 2022 The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.259/2022 of Kambalakkad Police Station, Wayanad, which was registered against him, alleging offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid crime was registered based on a complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, on 13.11.2021 and 20.11.2021, the petitioner purchased rubber sheets and latex for Rs.
13,60,985/- from the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant and did not pay the amount as per the bill. It is alleged that Annexure-2 is the complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent before the police wherein it is alleged that the petitioner purchased the rubber sheet and latex with the intention not to pay the amount and thereby to cheat the defacto complainant. Based on Annexure-A2, Annexure-A1 FIR is registered, and the investigation is now in progress. This Crl.MC is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1.
3 Crl.M.C No. 7343 OF 2022 3. Heard Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Adv. C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
4. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a licensed trader in rubber and the transactions which are the subject matter of this case were during the regular course of business. The dispute involved is purely civil in nature, and the defacto complainant submitted Annexure-A2 complainant by giving criminal flavour to the said transaction.
Therefore the registration of the crime and the further proceedings pursuant thereto are unsustainable, contends the learned counsel.
5. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor opposed the said submission by highlighting that the investigation in the case is in progress, and they are awaiting the response from the banks concerned for collecting the details of the transactions, which are the subject matter of the dispute.
4 Crl.M.C No. 7343 OF 2022 6. After pursuing the records and hearing the contentions on either said, I am of the view that since the prayer sought for in this Crl.MC is to quash an FIR, it is not necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of Cr.P.C at this stage. This is mainly because it is a well settled position that, when the challenge against an FIR is made, the same can be entertained only in exceptional cases where the offence is not at all made out from the allegations raised. Moreover, the question to be considered in respect of an FIR is whether the same contains any information which indicates any commission of a cognizable offence.
7. In this case, after perusing Annexures A2 and A1, I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 is warranted at this stage. Since the nature of the transaction is a matter that has to be investigated, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Crl.MC, and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, it
5 Crl.M.C No. 7343 OF 2022 is made clear that the observations and findings made in this order were only to examine whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for interference at the stage of the investigation. Under no circumstances the said observations would cause any prejudice to the petitioner, and all his contentions shall be kept open and to be considered by the authorities or the Court concerned at the appropriate time.
Considering the fact that the crime was registered during the month of June 2022, it is only proper that the investigation be completed without any delay. Therefore, it is directed that the 2nd respondent/ investigation officer shall conduct the investigation and complete the same as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A
JUDGE mtk
6 Crl.M.C No. 7343 OF 2022 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7343/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.259/2022 OF KAMBALAKKAD POLICE STATION DATED 3.6.2022 Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.259/2022 OF KAMBALAKKAD POLICE STATION DATED 3.6.2022 Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE OF THE FIRM OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE RUBBER BOARD DATED 7.1.2022 Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE FIRM OF THE PETITIONER DATED 17.7.2018 Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-WAY BILL DATED 13.11.2021 Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-WAY BILL DATED 25.11.2021 Annexure A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK DATED 14.10.2022