P.RAMESHAN v. P.R.MADHUSOODANAN

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA THIS CRIMINAL MISC.CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-03- 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.3383/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: A:TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. B:TRUE COPY OF SWORN STATEMENT TAKEN FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT. C:TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST DOCUMENT FILED BY FIRST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT. D:TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND DOCUMENT FILED BY FIRST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT. E:TRUE COPY OF THE DIARY EXTRACT IN CMP.NO.5562/2006 OF THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, SULTHAN BATHERY. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.3383 OF 2008 ========================== Dated this the 9th day of March, 2012 ORDER The petitioner who is the first accused in C.C.No.296 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Sultan Bathery, filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of all the proceedings in C.C.No.296 of 2008 as against him. He is the present Manager of Sulthan Bathery Branch of Sree Gokulam Chitti & Finance Company Private Limited (for short “the Company”). The first respondent herein was a subscriber to chitty No.G6L 56/11 conducted from the said branch of the Company. He bid the chitty on 28.6.1997 and obtained an amount to the tune of Rs.75,000/-. The subsequent developments made the first respondent herein to institute Annexure-A private complaint against the petitioner and also one P.K.Sathyan who was the Manager of the said branch of the Company during the relevant point of time. Crl.M.C.3383/08 2 The contention of the revision petitioner is that Annexure-A complaint carries absolutely no specific allegation against him. Further, even the little allegations made against him in Annexure-A complaint even if taken as true and correct would not constitute any offence as alleged against him. It is further contended that even according to 1st respondent, the entire transactions that culminated in Annexure-A complaint happened at a time when the second respondent held the office of Manager of the said branch of the Company. However, on Annexure-A complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summons was issued to the petitioner. On its receipt, the petitioner appeared before the court and then, approached this Court with aforementioned prayer.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. When this matter came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order on 4.9.2008 staying all further proceedings in Crl.M.C.3383/08 3 C.C.No.296 of 2008 as against the petitioner.

4. Annexure-A complaint unfolds the case of the first respondent. A scanning of Annexure-A complaint would virtually reveal that, essentially, the allegations were made against the second accused viz., the second respondent herein. Admittedly, the chitty transactions led to the instances of Annexure-A complaint occurred during the period 1997. At that point of time, the second respondent herein was holding the post of Manager of the Sulthan Bathery Branch of the Company. Incontrovertibly, it is long after that the petitioner joined the said Company in 2005 as the Manager of the said Branch. The allegations in paragraphs 1 to 4 in Annexure-A complaint are undoubtedly made against the second respondent herein, viz., the second accused in the above mentioned calender case. The allegation made in paragraphs 5 to 8 of Annexure-A by the first respondent is to the effect that after the assumption of charge by the revision petitioner herein as Manager of the said Branch of the Company, told him regarding the default in repayment of the installment towards the chitty. According to the first respondent, the Crl.M.C.3383/08 4 cheque in question was given as a security. Even according to the allegations in Annexure-A complaint, the first respondent herein bid the chitty and obtained the amount after deducting the discount, on

28.6.1997. In fact, the amount of Rs.75,000/- was obtained by him on

28.6.1997. His case is that on 7.7.1997, he entrusted an amount of Rs.29,000/- with the second respondent herein who was then working as the Manager of the said branch of the Company and that amount was not properly accounted towards the amount payable by him. There is no case for the first respondent of entrustment of any amount with the revision petitioner herein and the revision petitioner had failed to duly credit it in his chitty account. It is his case that he had handed over the chitty pass book with the second respondent and though he had requested for the same, it was not returned to him. Evidently, alleging that the first respondent had committed default in repayment, the Company presented the cheque issued by the first respondent for encashment and as it was dishonoured, the Company had taken recourse to the remedy under the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the criminal complaint filed on behalf of the company in respect of the said issue, cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Crl.M.C.3383/08 5 First Class Magistrate-I, Sulthan Bathery and it is taken on file as S.T.1027 of 2006. I do not think it necessary to go into the details of the said case as it has no relevance for the purpose of disposal of this case. The short question to be considered is whether the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein in Annexure-A complaint would constitute any of the offence as alleged by the first respondent in Annexure-A complaint against the revision petitioner. As already stated before, there is no case for the first respondent herein that he had entrusted any amount with the petitioner herein. It is a case that he had entrusted certain amount with the second respondent herein.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent strongly resisted the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that the one and only specific allegation levelled against the revision petitioner herein in Annexure-A complaint is that he obtained the pass book from the first respondent and promised him to get clarifications from the second accused. I do not think it appropriate to look into the allegations levelled against the second respondent herein in Crl.M.C.3383/08 6 paragraphs 5 to 8 and also in paragraphs 1 to 4. However, the allegations against the petitioner herein in Annexure-A complaint in paragraphs 5 to 8 would not constitute any offence against the revision petitioner herein. Evidently, the case of the first respondent is that after obtaining the bid amount on 28.6.1997, he had entrusted an amount of Rs.29,000/- with the second respondent, on 7.7.1997. In the absence of any specific allegation against the revision petitioner herein, allegations in paragraphs 5 to 8, in the circumstances, are too insufficient to constitute an offence against the petitioner herein and, therefore, asking the petitioner to stand the trial would result in miscarriage of justice. In the said circumstances, Annexure-A complaint and all proceedings in C.C.No.296 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Sulthan Bathery as against the revision petitioner herein is liable to be quashed and I do so. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. I may make it clear that the said complaint and all proceedings in C.C.No.296 of 2008 are quashed only to the extent they pertain to the revision petitioner, and, in other words, the complaint and all the proceedings in C.C.No.296 of 2008 as against the second accused therein have not been interfered Crl.M.C.3383/08 7 with. It is also made clear that the observations with respect to the allegations levelled in Annexure-A have been made solely for the purpose of looking into the question as to whether the allegations therein would constitute any offence against the revision petitioner herein. Therefore, the observations in this case shall not, in any way, prejudice the prosecution against the second respondent herein/second respondent and all such proceedings in C.C.No.296 of 2008. C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) AV/ Crl.M.C.3383/08 8 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 Crl.M.C.3383/08 9