In a recent legal case, the High Court’s decision to quash a final report was overturned, emphasizing the need for a thorough legal analysis. The court’s brief and cryptic order was deemed insufficient, prompting a fresh review of the case. This development underscores the importance of diligently considering all aspects of a case before arriving at a verdict, as per established legal guidelines.
Facts
- The appellant filed a complaint alleging that a cheque issued by Canara Bank in her name was fraudulently obtained and forged by the respondent No.2.
- The cheque was drawn for a sum of Rs.3,50,000 and presented through Federal Bank by the respondent No.2.
- The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 seeking to quash the final report, leading to an investigation.
- Investigation revealed that the cheque leaf belonged to the de facto complainant and contained his signature.
- Final report was submitted alleging that the accused threatened the de facto complainant using the forged cheque.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- The appellant, acting as the de facto complainant, alleged that a 30-year-old unused cheque leaf with her forged signature was used by respondent No.2 to extract Rs.3,50,000 illegally.
- The investigation revealed 15 witnesses cited against respondent No.2 for the offenses of forgery and attempt to extract money using the fraudulent cheque.
- The charges included Sections 420, 465, 468, and 472 of the Indian Penal Code.
- The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. highlighted the intentional fraudulent actions of respondent No.2 in the acquisition of the mentioned amount.
- Detailed investigation was conducted and final report filed, but High Court’s order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was brief and cryptic.
- High Court did not delve into details of the case or the nature of allegations leading to investigation and final report.
- High Court’s decision was influenced solely by the presence of the appellant’s signature on the cheque leaf and absence of threat allegations.
- Appellant’s case was that cheque was wrongly possessed by respondent No.2, forged signature used for realization attempts, while High Court failed to consider this perspective.
- Non-examination of the case from correct perspective goes against guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in earlier decisions.
- Quashing of final report without detailed analysis of facts or law is not sustainable.
- Order set aside to enable parties to present contentions and allow High Court to comprehensively consider the matter on facts and law.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- The order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the High Court in Crl.M.C. No.1792 of 2019 (D) is set aside.
- Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
- Crl.M.C. No.1792 of 2019 (D) is restored to the file of the High Court of Kerala for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
- The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
- All contentions of the parties are left open.
Case Title: M.P. RAMANI Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA (2022 INSC 816)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001196-001196 / 2022
