IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Santhosh philip, s/o. Chakko – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC No.2708 of 2023
Decided on : 26-08-2025
ORDER :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , by the sole accused to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.9/2022 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Kottayam, arising out of crime No.1/2004 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kottayam.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, who is the complainant in the above case.
3. Tracing the genesis of the case, as on 31.12.1999, a crime was registered by Kaduthuruthy Police Station, Kottayam, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 408 , 409, 467, 468 and 120A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by the accused, acting on a complaint, vide CMP 8129/99 filed by the 3rd respondent/complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom. The allegation in the complaint was that the accused named therein misappropriated Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). During investigation of the said crime, CW28 transferred the case to VACB, Eastern Range Police Station, Kottayam and thereafter, the crime was re-numbered as VC 01/04/ERK, incorporating the offences punishable under Sections 408 , 409, 467, 468 and 120A r/w. 34 of IPC as well as under Section 13 (1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’ for short).
4. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as borne out from Annexure A, the present final report (report filed after further investigation) and Annexure B (the earlier final report), as on 07.08.2013, Annexure B report was filed by the Investigating Officer, stating that none of the offences were made out and accordingly, it was prayed to accept the report and treat the case as ‘Further Action Dropped’. When the initial final report, i.e., Annexure B, was considered by the Special Judge, the learned Special Judge was not satisfied with the report and accordingly, he had ordered further investigation and in turn, the present final report, produced as Annexure A, was filed and as per which, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 471, 477A and 409 of IPC as well as under Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act by the accused.
5. In this case, the prosecution allegation as per the present final report is that the accused while working as former UD Clerk, KWA Sub Division, Kaduthuruthy during the year 1996- 1998 and as such being a public servant by abusing his official position dishonestly misappropriated the bill amount corresponding to Cheque No.148190 dated 31.03.98 for Rs.9,290/- corresponding to CBV 62 of 3/98 and Cheque No.761119 dated 23.04.98 for Rs.15,465/- corresponding to CBV 43 of 4/98 due to Sri.K.K.Vishakan, C class contractor of KWA, Kaduthuruthy, by presenting the said uncrossed bearer cheque either by himself or through some other person at the bank for encashment, by using the corresponding counterfoils of the encashed cheques having forged signatures of Sri.K.K.Visakhan for acknowledging the receipt of the cheques as genuine, by wilfully and fraudulently making false entries in the cash book and thereby obtained a pecuniary advantage of Rs.24,755/- due to CW1 towards the contract work carried out by him under KWA, Kaduthuruthy, for himself. Thus the accused has committed the offences of criminal misconduct, criminal breach of trust, falsification of accounts and using as genuine forged documents punishable under Section 13 (1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 471, 477A and 409 of IPC.
6. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the initial final report, recommendation to drop the proceedings was made and subsequently, as directed by the Special Court, during further investigation, the present final report has been filed, arraying th
The existence of sufficient prima facie evidence against an accused necessitates trial proceedings despite allegations of procedural delays in criminal cases.
Delay in filing a complaint can be fatal to the prosecution, especially when the accused's involvement is not substantiated.
Quashing under Section 482 CrPC denied where cheating allegations show deception from inception, accused absconding, charge sheet suppressed, and civil recovery co-exists without barring criminal pro....
Mere delay in the conclusion of the trial is not a ground to quash the proceedings, especially when the offenses alleged are serious in nature and cause loss to the exchequer of the State.
The court upheld the trial court's jurisdiction, confirming that prima facie evidence supported the charges of forgery and misappropriation despite the petitioner's defenses.
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of forgery or misappropriation against the petitioner, leading to the quashing of all proceedings.
The constitutional right to a speedy trial does not automatically lead to quashing proceedings unless the delay is solely attributable to the prosecution, especially if the accused contributed to the....
Inordinate delay in filing of criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of process of law.
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.