IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 6907 of 2005(V)
1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES
... Petitioner
2. MR.VINAYAN V., MANAGER,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :23/07/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.6907 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 23rd July, 2007
JUDGMENT
Heard both sides.
2. A private complaint Ext.P1 submitted by the petitioner-
K.S.F.E.Ltd. before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kannur
was forwarded to the 2nd respondent for investigation under Section
156(3) of the Crl.P.C. Investigation was conducted and the 2nd
respondent filed a final report arraying the 2nd petitioner who is the
manager of the 1st petitioner-K.S.F.E.Ltd. as accused No.8. The 2nd
petitioner is arrayed as an accused on the basis of a valuation report
which the 2nd petitioner had submitted previously to the 1st petitioner.
According to the investigating officer it is a higher value than the
market value which was given by the 2nd petitioner in the valuation
report and this betrays some complicity in the offence by the 2nd
petitioner. The present Writ Petition is filed by the K.S.F.E.Ltd. and
the 2nd petitioner jointly.
3. I have heard the Standing Counsel for the 1st petitioner-
K.S.F.E.Ltd. through whom only the Writ Petition has been filed.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the K.S.F.E.Ltd. is of the
firm conviction that the 2nd petitioner is not at all guilty of the
W.P.C.No.6907/05 – 2 –
offences alleged in Ext.P1 complaint. The K.S.F.E.Ltd. never wanted
the 2nd petitioner to be arrayed as an accused. The learned counsel
expressed the confidence that the de facto complainant-the 1st
petitioner will be able to substantiate the allegations in Ext.P1 even
without the 2nd petitioner being an accused in the case now charge
sheeted by the 2nd respondent. Under these circumstances and having
gone through the materials placed on record particularly Ext.P1
complaint and Ext.P3 complaint submitted by the K.S.F.E.Ltd. before
the Director General of Police raising protest in the matter of
implication of the 2nd petitioner also as a co-accused, I am of the view
that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this case can be
granted. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P2 charge sheet in C.C.No.463 of
2005 to the extent it is directed against the 8th accused therein (the
second petitioner herein).
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE