IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 165 of 2011() ----------------------------- CC.1048/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM CRIME NO. 905/2008 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------ K.BABU, SIVA SURYA, CANAL SIDE, SOUTH GATE P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VAIKOM POLICE STATION - 686 141. 3. MOHANAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KOVILAKATHU VEETTIL, UDAYAMPEROOR, NEAR POOTHOTTA BRIDGE, POOTHOTTA P.O. VAIKOM - 686 141. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.165 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.905 of 2008 of Vaikom Police Station and C.C.No.1048 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom. That case was registered for offences punishable under Secs.409, 420 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code on the information given by respondent No.2 alleging that petitioner and two others with intent to deceive, induced CWs.1 to 3 to deposit various amounts with the firm, M/s. Soorya Investments (of which it is alleged, petitioner is a partner) but, petitioner and other accused did not repay the amount. Petitioner contends that he was not a partner of M/s. Soorya Investments during the relevant time and hence the allegations cannot stand against him. He was falsely implicated in the case and hence proceedings against him are to be quashed. Learned counsel contended so. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Annexure-I contains statement of witness cited by the prosecution. His version is that petitioner and others were running M/s. Soorya Investments, they (including petitioner) Crl.M.C.No.165 of 2011 -: 2 :- induced him to deposit money and accordingly, he deposited Rs.1,25,000/- with the company on 22.11.2004. That was on the promise made by petitioner and others that the amount will be returned with interest but, there was no repayment. Petitioner has produced Annexures-2 and 3, documents to show that he was not a partner of M/s. Soorya Investments during the relevant time. But, the question presently is not whether petitioner was a partner of M/s. Soorya Investments or not. For, there is the positive statement made by the witness that petitioner along with others induced him to deposit money and believing their words he deposited the amount. Whether, in the light of materials produced by the petitioner claiming that he was not a partner of M/s. Soorya Investments at the relevant time, evidence that may be given by the witness could be accepted or not is a matter to be decided by the trial court. That is not a matter coming within the scope of Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence the prayer to quash the proceedings cannot be allowed. Resultantly without prejudice to the defences available to the petitioner in the trial court this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-