IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2015 of 2004(B)
1. SUBIN, S/O. A.A.SUGATHAN,
... Petitioner
2. STERLY, S/O. A.A.SUGATHAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :11/01/2007
O R D E R
K.R. UDAYABHANU, J
============================
CRL. M.C. NO. 2015 OF 2004 B
============================
Dated this the 11th day of January 2007
O R D E R
The petitioners, who are accused in C.C. No. 199/2003 in the file
of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani with respect to the
offence under sections 406, 408, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, has
sought for getting the above proceedings quashed. It is pointed out
that on the basis of the complaint filed before the police FIR was
registered under section 420 r/w 34 IPC. Subsequently the
complainant has filed Annexure C, private complaint. Further
proceedings with respect to the Annexure C is not initiated in the light
of section 210 Cr.P.C. The police after investigation filed the final
report which is Annexure D as per which the petitioners 1 and 2 have
been implicated for the offences under sections 406, 408,420 r/w 34
IPC.
2. The police charge is that 1st accused/1st petitioner entrusted
with the maintenance of accounts and supervision and conducting of
the toddy shops of Ponnani range of which the complainant was the
bidder during the period April 1998 to March 2001 has failed to render
the accounts and fleeced and had misappropriated the amounts to the
CRL. M.C. NO. 2015/200
: 2 :
tune of Rs. 13,69,288/- as well as Rs. 1,00,236/-. The latter amount
represented the amount mentioned as deposited to the toddy welfare
fund for January 2001, but not really remitted; and that both the
accused/petitioners have acted in concert and committed breach of
trust and cheating.
3. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners are close relatives of the defacto complainant i.e., sisters-
in-laws’ children and that the 1st petitioner was only helping the
defacto complainant in the maintenance of his business from his
college days onwards. It is pointed out that the defacto complainant
was in the mean time involved in a criminal case for vending of spirit
and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years
and that the matter is pending in appeal. It is contended by the
counsel for the petitioner that Annexure A complaint submitted before
the police on the basis of which FIR has been registered, did not
contain allegations sufficient to attract the ingredients of the offences
under sections 406 and 420 with respect to the second
petitioner/second accused as there is no such case in the FIS.
Evidently, investigation and final charge need not be confined to
averments in the FIR registered. I find, in the subsequent statement
CRL. M.C. NO. 2015/200
: 3 :
recorded of the defacto complainant under section 161 Cr.P.C
contains allegations with respect to the role of the second petitioner
as well. Section 161 statement of the witnesses produced also
contain allegations against the second petitioner and his involvement
in the offence. Sufficient materials has not been produced before this
court to arrive at a proper finding. In the circumstances, I find no
reason to quash the proceedings at this stage.
4. All the same, the petitioner may apply before the trial court
for discharge and the court shall consider the contentions of the
petitioners/accused on merit untrammelled by any of the observations
contained in this order.
The Crl. M.C. is disposed of accordingly.
K.R. UDAYABHANU, JUDGE.
RV