The High Court · 2025

ARUN ANTO, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ARAKKAL ANTO, ARACKAL HOUSE, AMBAKKAD DESAM, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT NO.1-A,FIRST FLOOR, PARK LAND APARTMENTS, THRISSUR DISTRICT-1 BY ADVS.N.M.MADHU SRI.P.P.HARRIS SMT.C.S.RAJANI RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT: 1 2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.3374/2016) ND BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 NAVODAYA KURIES LTD, GROUND FLOOR,PARKLAND REGENCY APARTMENTS, AMBAKKAD JUNCTION, THRISSUR TOWN REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND PRESENT DIRECTOR THOMAS.K.DAVIS, AGE 52 YEARS, S/O.KALLUKKARAN DEVASSY, THALORE DESOM, THALORE VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR SECOND RESPONDENT SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

02.04.2025, THE COURT ON 07.04.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.2748/2020 2 O R D E R Accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.3374/2016 of Thrissur Town East Police Station have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the order dated 29/02/2020 of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur in Crl.R.P.No.36/2019. The aforesaid Crl.R.P was filed challenging the order dated 27.04.2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur in Crl.M.P.No.2140/2017 directing further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The crime was registered by the Thrissur East Police in respect of the offences under Sections 403, 406, 409, 417, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C as per the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C upon a complaint filed by the second respondent. The allegation in the complaint was that while the first petitioner was the Chairman of the second respondent company, he misappropriated an amount of Rs.85,602/- by using forged documents, and transferred the same to the second petitioner’s kuri account. After the completion of the investigation, the police filed a refer-report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that the dispute involved was of civil nature. The second respondent/de facto Crl.M.C.No.2748/2020 3 complainant filed objection to the refer-report vide Crl.M.P.No.2140/2017 In the aforesaid Crl.M.P, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed a cryptic order as follows: ”Complainant is present. Forwarded to S.H.O. Thrissur Town East for further investigation u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C.” It is the aforesaid order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which the petitioners challenged before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thrissur by filing Crl.R.P.No.36/2019.

3. In the aforesaid Crl.R.P, the petitioners raised multiple challenges including the maintainability of a revision petition against the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directing further investigation, the scope of ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, and also the cryptic nature of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, without any reasonings. In the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to accept all the above challenges of the petitioners except the contention that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had not passed a speaking order stating the reasons for directing a further investigation. Referring to the observations of the Apex Court in The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others [JT Crl.M.C.No.2748/2020 4 2010 (2) SC 566], about the need to incorporate reasons in the orders passed by the judicial authorities, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without assigning reasons, totally unsustainable. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on

27.04.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.2140/2017, and directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass fresh orders on the objection filed by the second respondent/de facto complainant the refer-report, accordance with law. It is the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur, which the petitioners seek to quash in the present petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. As already stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur, set aside the order directing the further investigation on the ground that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not assign any reasons for passing such an order. The matter was remanded back Crl.M.C.No.2748/2020 5 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court for fresh consideration, and to pass orders on the objection filed by the second respondent/de facto complainant to the refer-report filed in this case. It is obvious from the above order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that, the order to be passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the matter of further investigation shall contain the specific reasoning for arriving at the decision taken thereunder. The observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the above regard, is perfectly right.

6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have stated in the order passed by her, about the reasons why she decided to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. So also, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have made it clear in the impugned order about her view on the objections raised by the second respondent/de facto complainant to the refer-report filed by the police. Therefore, the prayer in this petition to quash the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur, cannot be accepted. Needless to say that the present petition filed by the petitioners, can only fail. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed, upholding the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur. However, it Crl.M.C.No.2748/2020 6 is made clear that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall pass orders in compliance with the directions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur, uninhibited by the previous order passed by the Magistrate directing further investigation. (Sd/-) G. GIRISH, JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.2748/2020 7 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2748/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-A1 ANNEXURE-A2 ANNEXURE-A3 ANNEXURE-A4 ANNEXURE-A5 ANNEXURE-A6 ANNEXURE-A7 ANNEXURE-A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE RESPONDENT CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR AS C.M.P.NO.6152/2016 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.3374/2016 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2016 IN CRL.M.C.NO.640/2016 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.3371/2016 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION AS R.C.NO.93/2016 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2017 IN ANNEXURE A6 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2020 IN CRL.R.P.NO.36/2019 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE THRISSUR ANNEXURE-A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 21.03.2016 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE-A10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26.03.2016 TO ANNEXURE A9 ANNEXURE-A11 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 1885/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR Crl.M.C.No.2748/2020 8 ANNEXURE-A12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ANNEXURE-A13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LAWYER NOTICE DATED 30.03.2016 ANNEXURE-A14 ANNEXURE-A15 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT COMPANY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-2015 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT COMPANY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2015-2016