2022 Supreme(Online)(SC) 807
SUPREME COURT
Shri Raghenth Basant, Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Shri Nishe Rajen Shonker, JJ
Ramani M. P. v. State of Kerala and Another
Crl.M.C. No.1792 of 2019 (D)
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Raghenth Basant
For the Respondents: Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Shri Nishe Rajen Shonker
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of fraud and forgery regarding a cheque. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. high court's quashing of proceedings and need for thorough examination. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. supreme court's restoration of case for further examination. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
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 S.482 of Cr.P.C and quashed the final report submitted alleging commission of offence under S.420, S.465, S.468 and S.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 came to be registered for offence under S.420, S.465, S.468 and S.472 IPC. Pursuant thereto the investigation was conducted and the final report under S.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 S.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 S.420, S.465, S.468 and S.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 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) indicated therein. Based on such complaint, the law was set in motion. The final report submitted under S.173 Cr.P.C. on completion of the investigation would disclose