IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1785 of 2011() ----------------------- CC.231/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ............... PETITIONER / 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- M.K.VARADARAJAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.LATE KESAVAN CHANNAN, MANAPPALLIL HOUSE, PRAMADOM MURI, MALLASSERY P.O., PRAMADOM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SRI.P.B.PRADEEP SMT.LAYA SIMON RESPONDENTS / STATE / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 2. VILASINI, W/O.SASHIKUMAR, ARUN NIVAS, CHAKALAVILA, PANNIVISHI MURI, ADOOR, PIN-689646. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 1785 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE - A1 : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, WITH READABLE COPY OF PAGE NO.13. ANNEXURE -A2 : COPY OF THE DECISION TO RETIRE FROM THE 'ESSEN BANKERS' ON 07.08.2002. ANNEXURE -A3 : COPY OF THE RECONSTITUTION DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DATED 14.08.2002. ANNEXURE -A4 : COPY OF THE RECONSTITUTED DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DATED 05.01.2005. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1785 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in C.C. No.231 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case arose on a complaint preferred by the second respondent. She stated that herself, husband and children deposited `13,30,000/- with M/s.Essen Bankers, a partnership firm of which petitioner was a partner during the relevant time. Her further case is that in spite of the deposits acquiring maturity and demand for payment, petitioner did not release the amount. It is alleged that petitioner and the first accused cheated the second respondent and others. Learned counsel contended that petitioner is only a working partner of the firm, there was no entrustment of any property with him and in the nature of allegations made, offence alleged against petitioner will not stand. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Even as per the version of petitioner, he was a working partner acting as Manager of the firm during the relevant time. CRL.M.C. No.1785 of 2011 -: 2 :- According to the second respondent, herself, husband and children deposited a total sum of `13,30,000/- which was not returned in spite of the fixed deposits acquiring maturity. Under Section 415 of the IPC which defines cheating it is sufficient that there is a fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver the property. I stated about the case of the second respondent. On going through the allegations in the complaint I am not inclined to accept the contention of petitioner that no case is made out against him so that proceedings are to be quashed. Petitioner can take appropriate defence in the rial court. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to take appropriate defence in the trial court. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv