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