IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 600 of 2010() ------------------------ ST.1567/2008 of JFCM COURT VI, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MANOJ KUMAR K.R., KARIMATTOM HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., PERUMBAIKKAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.RAJEEV V.KURUP, MR.ALEX.M.SCARIA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. M/S.SELECT STOCK BROKERS LTD., HEAD OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,ST.REDDIAR &SONS BLDG.,VEEKSHANAM ROAD, KOCHI-45, REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SRI.JOHNKUTTY JAMES, S/O. V.S.JAMES JOSEPH, GENERAL MANAGER, SELECT STOCK BROKERS LTD, 1ST FLOOR, ST.REDDIAR & SONS BLDG.,VEEKSHANAM RD., KOCHI-45. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 600 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 19th day of February,2010 ORDER This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure 4 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-VI, Ernakulam in C.M.P.557/2009 whereunder the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the DBFS Securities Ltd to substitute as the complainant, on the ground that as per the certificate issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the name of the complainant, is changed to DBFS Securities Ltd. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that before permitting DBFS Securities Ltd to substitute as complainant, learned Magistrate should have granted leave sought for by the complainant and Crl.M.C.600/2010 2 as it is not granted the order is not sustainable. 2. The complainant as such has not been changed. The complainant was originally M/s.Select Stock Brokers Ltd. By Annexure IV order,learned Magistrate has only permitted to change the name of the Company, in accordance with the certificate issued by the Government of India whereunder the name is changed. I find no reason to interfere with Annexure IV order. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions in S.T.1567/2008, including these raised herein. He is entitled to challenge the order along with the final order, if it goes against him. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006