Joby Thomas vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 316 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

                    Crl.MC.No.8461 OF 2018(G)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 3816/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                 OF FIRST CLASS -I, IRINJALAKUDA

   CRIME NO.1244/2011 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR


PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

             JOBY THOMAS
             AGED 66 YEARS
             S/O.THOMAS, KADICHEENI HOUSE, NEYTHAKUDI DESOM,
             VADAKA VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

             BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO

RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA AND THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

      1      THE STATE OF KERALA
             REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA
             POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

 ADDL.2      UNION BANK
             IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH,REP.BY MANAGER,IRINJALAKUDA PO,
             MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR 680733

             (IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER ORDER DATED
             12.11.2019 IN CRL.M.A. 1/19 IN CRL.M.C.8461/18)

             PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.N.MAYA

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.8461 OF 2018(G)            2




                                  ORDER

A bank employee, accused No.3, against whom

a crime was registered for the offence under

Section 409, 417, 420, 465, 468 r/w Section 34

IPC came up to quash the proceedings. It is

pertaining to release of third installment in a

loan transaction based on the loan facility

extended by the bank in connection with a

building construction. The allegation is that

he had not satisfied himself with respect to

the stage of construction by making a personal

inspection, but acted upon the documents

produced by accused Nos. 1 and 2 regarding the

stage in which the construction was over. It

will not attract the offence under Sections 417

and 420 IPC or even 409 IPC. Mere failure to

discharge the official duty may not itself

constitute criminal liability, unless the same

is coupled with necessary mens rea. The

allegation of forgery is against the other

accused, not against the accused No.3. Hence

the entire proceedings being an abuse of

process of law against the 3rd accused is hereby

quashed. Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1244 OF 2011 OF THE IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION DATED 2/8/2011.

ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.1244 OF 2011 OF THE IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION DATED 3/5/2018.

ANNEXURE III A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 3/8/2011 IN CRIME NO.1244 OF 2012 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE IV A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 20/3/2012 IN CRIME NO.1244 OF 2012 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE