The Petitioner, in the year 2020 had been charged under Section 308 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Respondent named Harif Othayot was unable to repay the loan amount obtained from the Catholic Syrian Bank and this action resulted in his private residential property being brought to sale. In the meantime, the Petitioner contacted the third Respondent claiming himself as a practising advocate and General Secretary of Kerala Debt and Debt Trap Victim Association.
The Petitioner assured the third Respondent of negotiating with the bank and helping him secure some concessions. Believing the words of the Petitioner, the third Respondent paid him the total of Rs 15,80,000/- at various intervals. But the Respondent got the knowledge of the alleged fraud by the Petitioner, when the bank officials arrived at his house, demanding repayment of the loan.
The Respondent then called up the Petitioner and asked to hand over the proof of payment and the Petitioner agreed to the demand. The Respondent was asked to meet at Ramanattukara, but the Petitioner rather than handing the documents hit the Respondent. The incident was reported to the police and the charges were framed. Hence, the Petitioner had approached the High Court seeking to quash the charges against him.
Arguments before the court
The Petitioner was represented by Learned Advocate Prathap S.R.K and assisted by Advocate Dhananjay Deepak. The counsel for the Petitioner argued that Rs 18,00,000/- was due to the Petitioner by the victim for the alleged offence. He claimed that the Respondent has filed a complaint contrary to the facts and his allegations are baseless. The counsel relied upon the witness testimony in the police mahazar scene and this was recorded by the Honourable Court.
The Respondent was represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor, T.R. Renjith who placed reliance on the history of the Petitioner. The counsel put forth the fact that the Petitioner was charged with similar offences earlier and has charge sheets in his name. He also urged that the provision of Section 482 of Cr. P.C cannot be invoked by the Court in the instant matter. This argument by the counsel for the Respondent was recorded by the Honourable Court.
The Honourable High Court of Kerala heard both the counsels for Petitioner and Respondents. The Court agreed to the argument of the Learned Public Prosecutor, declaring that the argument had merit for consideration. It said that no extraordinary circumstances were granting the Honourable Court to invoke Section 482 of the Cr. P.C, as it considered the well-settled law of the land.
The Learned Single Judge of the Honourable High Court of Kerala passed an order against the relief prayed by the Petitioner stating that an enquiry on the genuineness of allegations cannot be examined by the court and it cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. The Court thereby dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.