Kerala HC Upholds Framing Of Charges Against MLA Mani C. Kappan In Cheating Case

A Single Bench of Justice C.S. Dias observed, “Court has to only form a prima facie opinion as to whether there are any sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The court is not expected to appreciate the evidence on record and then conclude whether the materials are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.”

Advocate Deepu Thankan represented the petitioner, while Sr. P.P. C.S Hrithwik appeared for the respondents.

Mani C. Kappan (petitioner), a sitting MLA, challenged an order of the Magistrate which framed charges against him for the trial of criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs of the State.

A complaint was registered under Sections 406, 417, and 420 of the IPC alleging that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 2 crore from the complainant and repaid only Rs. 25 lakh. An agreement was subsequently reached between the parties, where the MLA agreed to repay Rs. 3.25 crore in instalments, backed by post-dated cheques and a charge over his property.

However, the cheques were dishonoured, and the complainant later discovered the property was already mortgaged to the Kottayam Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, leading to accusations of cheating and fraud.

During the pre-charge evidence stage, the second respondent and a witness were examined, and charges were framed by the court despite Kappan's contentions. The revision petition asserts that the framing of charges was done without proper reasoning or consideration of his arguments, calling the order "illegal, irregular and improper."

The Court explained that it only had to form a prima facie opinion as to whether there were any sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. “The court is not expected to appreciate the evidence on record and then conclude whether the materials are sufficient or not for convicting the accused,” the Bench added.

“In the case on hand, as already referred to above, the revision petitioner had initially challenged the proceedings before this Court under Sec.482, which petition was dismissed by this Court and the order was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the second respondent’s witness were examined. Yet, the petitioner did not file any application for discharge,” the Court remarked.

Consequently, the Court held that “the learned Magistrate has applied his mind and arrived at a conclusion that there are grounds to presume that the accused has committed the above offences” and hence, found no “illegality, impropriety or irregularity” in the impugned order warranting interference.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Mani C. Kappan v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:48363)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Deepu Thankan, Lakshmi Sreedhar, Ummul Fida and Vineetha Bose

Respondents: Sr. P.P. C.S Hrithwik; Advocate V. Sethunath

Click here to read/download the Order