Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 9535 OF 2022 CRIME NO.1750/2022 OF Town East Police Station, Thrissur PETITIONER/S: 1 SANTHIBHOOSHAN AGED 45 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN, MANGATTUNJALIL VEEDU, P O PULLU, THRISSUR DISTRICT , PIN - 680641 2 SREEJA SANTHIBHOOSHAN AGED 39 YEARS W/O. SANTHIBHOOSHAN MANGATTUNJALIL VEEDU, P.O.PULLU,THRISSUR DISTRICT , PIN - 680641 BY ADVS. DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M. NAYANA VARGHESE AHAMMAD SACHIN K. RESPONDENT/S: 1 RAPHY JOHN AGED 51 YEARS S/O. P P JOHN, PUTHUSSERYPADI HOUSE, TRIKKUR ROAD, KONIKKARA P O, TRIKKUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT , PIN - 680306 2 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM , PIN - 682031 Adv.SRI. M.P. PRASANTH, SR. P.P. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: :2 :
ORDER
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2023 The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime
No.1750/2022 of Thrissur Town East Police Station. The aforesaid crime was registered alleging the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint submitted by the 1st respondent herein, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur as Crl.M.P.
156(3) of Cr.P.C. Consequently, Annexure-A2 F.I.R. was registered for the offences mentioned above. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure- A2.
2. Heard Sri. Dinesh Mathew J Muricken, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State. :3 :
3. The specific contention put forward by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that, even going by the averments contained in Annexure-A1 private complaint submitted by the 1 st respondent, it can be seen that, the transactions which are the subject matter of the case are civil in nature. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said transactions are in respect of the investment made in a Company, and under no circumstances any culpability can be attributed against the petitioners herein.
4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor
would oppose the aforesaid contentions. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the case is only at the preliminary stage of investigation and under no circumstances, any interference can be made at this stage.
5. I have gone through the records and heard the
contentions raised from either side. It is discernible from Annexure-A1 private complaint that, the petitioners along with the other accused have allegedly persuaded the defacto complainant to purchase 60% shares of the Company, named M/s. Kabani Blue Metals Pvt.Ltd. in which the petitioners were Directors, for a :4 : total amount of `15,79,20,000/-. A memorandum of understanding was also allegedly executed between the parties and as part of the said transaction an amount of `3,01,00,000/- was collected by the petitioner. As per the terms of the Memorandum Of Understanding, the 1st respondent was made as the additional Director of the said Company.
6. However, the allegation is that, later, the accused
persons, conspired together and created false documents and using the same, removed the defacto complainant from the Directorship of the said Company and thereby cheated him. It is seen that, the specific allegation to that effect is made in Annexure A1 complaint. It is well settled position of law that, the invocation of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at the investigation stage is to be done sparingly and under exceptional circumstances. If the information furnished by the complainant, reveals a cognizable offence, the Police has to investigate the matter and no interference can be made by this
Court. At the time of considering the challenge during the investigation stage, the question whether there are materials available for proceedings against the accused is not a relevant :5 :
aspect but the question is confined as to whether there are allegations revealing a cognizable offence. When the aforesaid test is applied to the materials produced before the court, I am of the view that, this is not a case which falls under any exceptional circumstance warranting interference by this Court at this stage.
In such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this Crl.M.C. and accordingly it is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. would not preclude the petitioner from approaching this Court again, if any final report is submitted against him. The observations made and findings entered by this Court in this order were only for the purpose of determining the question as to whether the interference is required at the stage. The Police can continue the investigation untramelled by any of the observations.
Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ncd :6 : APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9535/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF CRL.M.P. NO.3416/2022 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR DATED 16.08.2022 Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.1750/2022 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION DATED 02.09.2022 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.08.2021 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.DICKNR/2512/2019-B4 ISSUED BY THE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, KANNUR DATED 21.02.2022