Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.3396 of 2016 CC 503/2012 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR CRIME NO.654/2011 OF CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: PRASANTH RAJ, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O PUSHPAKUMARI, POURNAMI HOSUE, KALLIMEL MURIYIL, VETTIYAR VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689121. 3 MANAPPURAM FINANCE LIMITED, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR-680567, REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA MANAGER, SRI. M.D.RADAKRISHNAN, MANAPPURAM FINANCE AREA OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688001. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR SRI C.M KAMAPPU SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No.3396 of 2016 2
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the 2 nd accused in C.C.No.503/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur. In the aforesaid case, he faces accusation of having committed offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The case is now pending as L.P.No.26 of 2016 before the learned Magistrate.
2. According to the prosecution, on 19.07.2011 a complaint
was filed by the Area Manager, Manappuram Finance Ltd, before the Chengannur Police Station alleging that, on 11.04.2011, the 1 st accused availed a gold loan from the branch and received a sum of Rs.5,03,500/-. After remitting a sum of Rs.1,10,370/-, she committed default. On verification, it was found that the gold ornaments, which were pledged, were spurious. Alleging that a sum of Rs.4,28,263/- is due from the 1st accused, a complaint was lodged, based on which, Crime No.654 of 2011 was registered under Section 420 of the IPC arraying certain Renju as the accused.
3. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that the
petitioner herein was in charge when the ornaments were pledged. He was the person, who had accepted the gold and had advanced the amount. Concluding that he also had a role in the commission of the Crl.MC.No.3396 of 2016 3 offence, a report was submitted before court below arraying him as the 2nd accused. Later, investigation was completed and final report was laid before the jurisdictional court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that when the FI statement was lodged, the de facto complainant had no case that the petitioner herein had any role to play in the acts committed by the 1st accused. The only allegation against him is that he had accepted the spurious gold and had advanced money. It is submitted that it was on the basis of the report of the appraiser that the petitioner had accepted the gold, which was brought by the 1st accused. His implication as an accused is without any basis is the submission. The learned counsel would further urge that in the course of criminal proceedings, the entire amounts were paid to the financing company by the 1 st accused and thereafter, the company through its legal representative had filed an affidavit stating that they had no further grievance as against the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, who opposed
the prayer. It is submitted that in the course of investigation, it was revealed that it was with the junction of the petitioner herein that the 1st accused had committed the offence. The settlement arrived at Crl.MC.No.3396 of 2016 4 between the parties cannot be accepted, submits the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. It appears
from the complaint as well as FIR that initially the allegation was centered against the 1st accused. It was in the course of investigation that some of the staff members had informed the police officials that the petitioner herein was the person, who was in charge of the Manager, as the Branch Manager was on leave. In the final report, the police have cited as many as 11 witnesses to prove the incident. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, except for a vague allegation that he was the person, who had accepted the gold and had released the money, there is nothing to show that he had acted in concert with the 1st accused. Even otherwise, it appears from the records that the entire disputes have been settled and the amount due has been received by the finance company. The 3 rd respondent has also filed an
affidavit to that effect. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A3 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now Crl.MC.No.3396 of 2016 5 pending as L.P.No.26 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur are quashed. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE IAP //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Crl.MC.No.3396 of 2016 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 19.7.2011. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE FIS DATED 19.7.2011. ANNEXURE A3: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
6.3.2012. ANNEXURE A4: COPY OF PROCEEDING SHEET IN L.P.NO.26/2016