K. BABU
K. R. Haridas – Appellant
Versus
Dy. S. P. (VACB) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The prayers in the Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:-
(ii) Granting such other interim reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice;
2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.9 of 2020 (VC 5/2017/KNR) on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassry. The petitioner and the other accused face charges under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is as follows:-
3.1 The petitioner was the Head of the Department of Chemistry at the SAT Campus, Kannur University. Accused No.2 was the Head of the Department of Physics.
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460
Greik Xavier v. Sub Inspector of Police
M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 2021 SC 1918).
Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015) 7 SCC 423
Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 9 SCC 293
Pratibha Rani V. Suraj Kumar (1985) 2 SCC 370
Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330)
Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368
State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan (1999) 2 SCC 651
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar Tripathi (2009) 15 SCC 533
State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma (1996) 7 SCC 705
State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982) 1 SCC 561
State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr Anup Kumar Srivastava AIR 2017 SC 3698
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of forgery or misappropriation against the petitioner, leading to the quashing of all proceedings.
Point of law: Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations....
The court ruled that the absence of dishonest intention in the allegations against the petitioners justified quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The court affirmed that allegations of misappropriation and cheating warranted further investigation, emphasizing the High Court's limited role in assessing cognizable offences.
At the discharge stage, the court must assume prosecution evidence is true and evaluate if it discloses necessary elements of the alleged offence, not the merits of the case.
Stage of taking of cognizance of the offence and issuing process, and the stage when the charge is to be framed against the accused or alternatively the accused is to be discharged are different stag....
A court exercising its equitable jurisdiction will not exercise such jurisdiction when a prima facie view of fraud has been opined by an expert and a properly constituted criminal trial is required.
The court affirmed that prima facie evidence of a conspiracy and forgery necessitates proceeding with trial, emphasizing the narrow scope of quashing FIRs under Section 482.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.