IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3663 of 2006()
1. SHRI G.THOMAS, AGED 54,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF
3. AMBALATHUMBHAGOM SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANADU.
For Petitioner :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :07/11/2008
O R D E R
M.C. HARI RANI, J.
======================
CRL.M.C.NO.3663 of 2006
========================
Dated this the 7th day of November 2008
ORDER
The petitioner herein has filed this petition under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-4
charge sheet in C.C.No.219/2006 pending before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcottah.
2. The petitioner, who was working as Counter Executive
in Edakkad Extension Counter of Ambalathubhagam Service Co-
Operative Bank Ltd.No.2836, was suspended as per the charge
memo dated 30-6-2006 on the allegation that he had caused
loss to the Bank of Rs.4,07,800/- by receiving imitation
ornaments for sanctioning loans to various persons. Annexure-1
is the true copy of the charge memo. Copy of the written
statement filed by the petitioner herein before the Bank is
produced as Annexure-2. Thereafter, a complaint has been filed
by the second respondent, Assistant Registrar(General) of Co-Op.
CRMC.3663/2006 -2-
Societies, before the 4th respondent on the basis of which Crime
No.312/2005 was registered under Sections 420 read with
Section 34 I.P.C. against nine persons as revealed from the copy
of the F..I.R.,Annexure-3. Subsequently, another charge sheet
was filed, copy of which is produced as Annexure-4, wherein the
petitioner was impleaded as the first accused and also
incorporated Section 409 of I.P.C. The petitioner herein is
challenging Annexure-A4 and the consequential proceedings
before the Magistrate Court in this petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the third respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor
also.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that no offence can be made out against the petitioner as per
Annexure-4 charge sheet. The learned counsel has relied on
Annexure-5 report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, Mr.P.
Muraleedharan Nair, Advocate, Sasthamcottah, to substantiate
the innocence of the petitioner. The learned counsel also
submitted that the ingredients under Section 409 and 420 I.P.C.
CRMC.3663/2006 -3-
are also absent in the complaint and in the F.I.R. to proceed
against him.
4. . The learned counsel for the third respondent has
vehemently opposed the prayer in this petition. It is also
submitted that this Court cannot decide at this stage whether
the ingredients are there to attract the offence under Sections
409 and 420 I.P.C., which is the duty of the trial court.
According to him, the allegations in this petition itself is against
the case put forward by the petitioner and that it cannot be
presumed at this stage that the petitioner is innocent.
5. I have gone through the allegations in this petition and
also the documents produced by the petitioner to support his
case. Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this
Court is not sitting in appeal or in revision. This Court cannot
decide whether there are sufficient ingredients to prove the case
of the prosecution against the petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R.
or whether the report of the enquiry officer is correct and
binding. This is an extra ordinary jurisdiction to this Court
which can be applied only sparingly and with great caution.
CRMC.3663/2006 -4-
Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no
reason to quash the F.I.R.,Annexure-4, and consequential
proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Sasthamcotah . The Crl.M.C.is dismissed.
M.C. HARI RANI
JUDGE
ks.