M.P. Ramani Versus State of Kerala & Anr.

M.P. Ramani Versus State of Kerala & Anr.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



 Page 1 of 7
 NON-REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1196 OF 2022
 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.485 of 2022)
M.P. Ramani .…Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Kerala & Anr. …. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. The appellant herein who was arrayed as
Respondent No.2 in Crl.M.C. No.1792 of 2019 (D) before
the High Court of Kerala is before us in this appeal
assailing the order dated 07.10.2020. By the said order,
the High Court has allowed the petition filed by
Respondent No.2 herein under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and
quashed the final report submitted alleging commission of
 Page 2 of 7
offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 472 IPC by
respondent No.2 herein.
2. The brief facts leading to the case is that the
appellant herein as de facto complainant filed a complaint
dated 14.01.2014 before the Sub-Inspector, Payyannur
Police Station alleging that the cheque bearing
No.813/063676 of Canara Bank, Payyannur Branch
relating to A/c No.13111/2019 standing in the name of the
appellant has been fraudulently obtained by the
respondent No.2 herein and on forging the appellant’s
signature has attempted to extract amount from her
account. It is specifically alleged that the signature on the
cheque is forged and the cheque is drawn for a sum of
Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand) and
was presented through the Federal Bank, Payyannur
Branch through the account maintained by respondent
No.2. The complaint further alleges that the cheque was
allotted to the appellant by the Canara Bank, 30 years
back and was not in use for want of new MCRI number.
Based on the said complaint, FIR No.66 dated 20.01.2014
 Page 3 of 7
came to be registered for offence under Sections 420, 465,
468 and 472 IPC. Pursuant thereto the investigation was
conducted and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
was filed before the Competent Court. The respondent
No.2 herein was accordingly accused of having committed
the crime alleged by the appellant.
3. The appellant, at that stage filed the petition under
Section 482 before the High Court seeking that the final
report be quashed. The appellant was arrayed as
respondent No.2 to the said petition. The High Court by
the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 has allowed the
petition and quashed the proceedings. The brief impugned
order reads as hereunder:
“ORDER
A final report was submitted alleging the
offences punishable under Sections 420,
465, 468 and 472 IPC based on an alleged
issuance of a cheque in favour of the
accused. It is alleged that the accused
somehow obtained cheque leaf belonged to
the de facto complainant and forged the
same into a cheque signed by him. On
investigation it was revealed that the
cheque leaf is belonged to the de facto
complainant and it contains his signature.
Final report was submitted on the
 Page 4 of 7
allegation that the accused threatened the
de facto complainant by using the said
cheque. But no such case was raised by
the complainant. The submission of final
report for the abovesaid offence hence is an
abuse of process of the court and quashed.
Crl. M.C. is allowed accordingly.”
4. The appellant, thus being aggrieved is before this
Court assailing the said order.
5. Heard Shri Raghenth Basant, learned counsel for
the appellant, Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned
counsel for respondent No.2, Shri Nishe Rajen Shonker,
learned counsel for respondent No.1, and perused the
appeal papers.
6. In the background of the contentions urged, a
perusal of the appeal papers indicates that the appellant
herein, as the de facto complainant had made a specific
allegation that the cheque leaf belonging to the appellant
which was about 30 years old and was not in use had been
wrongly secured, her signature was forged and fabricated
by the respondent No.2 to extract the amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand)
 Page 5 of 7
indicated therein. Based on such complaint, the law was
set in motion. The final report submitted under Section
173 Cr.P.C. on completion of the investigation would
disclose that the investigating officer has cited as many as
15 witnesses to lead to the charge against respondent No.2
herein that with an intention to commit the offence, he had
written an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs
and fifty thousand) and presented it through his account
in Federal Bank, Payyannur Branch, thereby tried to
extract the money from the appellant which amounts to
commission of an offence punishable under Sections 420,
465, 468 and 472 IPC.
7. Though detailed investigation was conducted and
the final report was filed, the order of the High Court which
is extracted above will indicate that while exercising the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not only brief, but
cryptic. The High Court, neither has adverted to the facts
arising in the case in detail nor to the nature of the
allegation which led to the investigation and the filing of
the final report. The only observation which appears to
 Page 6 of 7
have influenced the decision of the High Court is that the
cheque leaf belongs to the appellant and it contains her
signature and there is no allegation of threat. On the other
hand, the very case sought to be made out by the appellant
is that the cheque belonging to the appellant has been
wrongly possessed by respondent No.2 and the cheque has
been presented for realization by forging her signature and
an attempt was made to extract the money. The nonexamination of the case is incorrect perspective, keeping in
view the guideline laid down by this Court to be borne in
mind while exercising the power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., in various decisions, more particularly in the case
of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 has led to an order which on the face of
it is not sustainable.
8. Having noted that the High Court has quashed the
final report without adverting to either the facts or law by
a cryptic order, it would be appropriate for us to set aside
the order and restore the petition to the file to the High
Court so as to enable the parties to put forth their
 Page 7 of 7
contentions and allow the High Court to comprehensively
advert to the matter on facts and law.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by
the High Court in Crl.M.C. No.1792 of 2019 (D) is set aside.
Crl.M.C. No.1792 of 2019 (D) is restored to the file of the
High Court of Kerala to enable a decision afresh and in
accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are left
open.
10. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
11. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
…...……………………….J.
(D.Y. CHANDRACHUD)
 …………………………….J.
 (A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
August 11, 2022

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर