IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4311 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.281/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3: --------------------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O. SANKARAN NAIR, MAHESWARI HOUSE, T.C.23/923 (2) MUNDANAD ROAD, NEAR VALIYASALA MAHADEVAN TEMPLE, VELIYASALA WARD, VALIYASALA VILLAGE. BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.P.M.RAFIQ. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED: R2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1959, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DTD. 3/12/2010 IN CRL.M.A./NO.7579/2010 IN CRMC.NO.4311/10) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4311 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 21st day of February, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is third accused in C.C.No.281 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram arising from the final report in Crime No.250/CR/TVM/03 of CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Secs. 120B, 406, 409 and 381 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. First accused is the appraiser-cum-cashier, the second accused is the Manager and the third accused is the senior clerk of the second respondent, the Thiruvananthapuram Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Case is that petitioner and accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention sanctioned loans in favour of their kith and kin on the basis of forged loan applications either with pledge of gold ornaments or pledging fake gold ornaments, certain gold ornaments which were pledged were removed from the locker of the second respondent and thus, committed offences as alleged. It is alleged that on account of the said act loss was caused to the bank and CWs.2 to 27. Petitioner seeks to quash the final report and proceeding against him on the ground that allegations Crl.M.C.No.4311 of 2010 -: 2 :- against him are not revealed by the final report and that even in the departmental enquiry it was revealed that there was only negligence on the part of petitioner in supervising the procedure in the matter of grant of loan. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner acted as Manager only for 8 days during the time the second accused was on leave and that ornaments were taken as pledge only after the first accused, appraiser had approved that it is pure gold. 2. I have heard learned counsel for second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor also. According to them, there are sufficient materials produced to prove involvement of petitioner in the alleged incident. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that during the time petitioner was acting as Manager in the absence of second accused, loan applications of CWs.3, 4, 7, 13, 14 and 20 were processed and sanctioned. It would appear that even those witnesses are either closely related to the first accused or, were his acquaintances. Learned counsel for additional second respondent submitted that most of the applications preferred by those witnesses were not signed and that the loan could not have been sanctioned by the petitioner in such situation. It is also pointed out that gold ornaments pledged are to be kept in the Crl.M.C.No.4311 of 2010 -: 3 :- locker and, its duplicate keys are to be kept by the Manager and Cashier and the locker could be opened only using both the keys. In the circumstances without the knowledge of petitioner gold ornaments kept in the locker could not have been removed. 4. On hearing counsel on both sides, learned Public Prosecutor and going through the final report involvement of petitioner cannot be ruled out. That question has to be decided in evidence. In such a situation this Court cannot be asked to decide the dispute on facts and quash proceeding under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”). Nor is the finding in the departmental enquiry a ground to quash criminal proceeding. Whatever defences that petitioner may have in the course of trial cannot be taken as a ground to quash proceeding under Sec.482 of the Code. On hearing learned counsel on both sides, learned Public Prosecutor and the relevant records I am not persuaded to think that this is a case where this Court is justified in interfering under Sec.482 of the Code. Petitioner has to face the trial. This criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge