IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2679 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CC.537/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD. PARADIGM PLAZA, IST FLOOR NEAR A.B.SHETTY CIRCLE, MANGALORE-1, KARNATAKA. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD. OPP IBP PETROL PUMP, THALANGARA GATE,NULLIPADY KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. PRAKASH .K.,S/O.RAGHAVENDRA RAO.K RESIDING AT BADJADKA HOUSE, PERDALA POST, BEDIAKA, KASARGOD. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. R2 BY ADV. MR.T.MADHU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO. 2679 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 10th December 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and second respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.537/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasargod taken cognizance for the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 complaint filed by second respondent. First petitioner is the first accused and second petitioner the second accused. As per Annexure-A1 complaint itself first petitioner is not an individual but a company M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. So also, second petitioner is not an individual, but the Branch Manager of Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. As rightly pointed out by petitioners, neither first petitioner company nor the Branch Manager could commit the offences as alleged. Even if, there was a theft, it could have been only by the named officers of the company and not by the company or the officer. For that sole reason, the cognizance taken is to be Crmc 2679/09 2 quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also pointed out that offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code will not lie, when the seizure was consequent to the order passed by the Arbitrator. It was pointed out that even though, when the arbitration proceedings was pending, this court quashed the order and directed the Munsiff to re-consider the application and subsequently learned Munsiff finding that there is an arbitration clause referred the dispute to the Arbitrator, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent pointed out that, that order was subsequently quashed by this court and once again the Munsiff was directed to re-consider the question. Whatever it be, in the nature of the case, continuation of the criminal proceedings is only an abuse of process of the court. Petition is allowed. C.C.537/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kasargod is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.