IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2692 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.99/2008 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- P.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT USHA NILAYAM, PERUTHADY P.O. RANIPURAM, RAJAPURAM, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 2. C.M.MUHAMMED ,C.M.HOUSE, KALLAR P.O. HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SMT.PRABHA R.MENON FOR R2 SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 3073 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. Nos.2692 and 3073 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in a crime registered at the Rajapuram Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 409 and 419 r/w 34 I.P.C. Altogether there are 4 persons arrayed as accused. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend that action may be taken against them. According to them, they do not deserve to endure the trauma of such criminal prosecution against them. They hence pray that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the F.I.R registered in so far as it relates to the petitioners, ie. accused 2 and 3. 2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. He has filed statement in Crl.M.C.No.2692 of 2008. The defacto complainant has also entered appearance. The learned Public Prosecutor and the defacto complainant opposed the application. They submit that there is need to conduct a proper investigation. At the moment and with the available inputs, there are indications pointing to the complicity of the petitioners. At least there is room for reasonable suspicion against the Crl.M.C. Nos.2692 and 3073 of 2008 2 petitioners. It is only a proper and thorough investigation, which can unearth the truth. The involvement, if any, and the extent of such involvement of the petitioners in the transaction will have to be assessed and evaluated only after proper investigation. The police may not be deprived of the opportunity to conduct a proper investigation, submits the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant. 3. The precise allegations is that the defacto complainant who had a R.D account with the post office had entrusted the passbook etc. with the 1st accused, the Mahila Pradhan agent. The R.D account had become ripe. The defacto complainant wanted to get back the amount. When the defacto complainant went to the post office, to his shock and dismay, he came to know that a loan had been availed from the R.D account and the loan amount had been released to someone. The defacto complainant had not taken any loan. His enquiry revealed that a fraudulent transaction has been entered into to make it appear that the defacto complainant had availed a loan from the R.D account. The defacto complainant alleged that the 1st accused, the Mahila Pradhan agent, the petitioners, ie. the officials of the post office and the 4th accused, a witness who is alleged to have Crl.M.C. Nos.2692 and 3073 of 2008 3 identified the loanee to the post office, were all collusively involved in the transaction. It is hence that a complaint was filed against all the 4 accused. 4. The petitioners contend that except the vague and baseless suspicion, there is no material whatsoever to even remotely suggest the complicity of the petitioners. They contend that, in any view of the matter, they do not deserve to stand the trauma of such criminal proceedings against them. 5. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant. At the moment and with the available inputs, it is virtually impossible for this Court to hazard an authentic opinion as to whether the petitioners do have or do not have any contumacious involvement in the transaction. They definitely have involvement in the transaction. How they identified the loanee is an aspect which requires to be explained by the petitioners. In any view of the matter, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant that at this stage such powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C do not deserve to be invoked to avoid an investigation against the petitioners. Crl.M.C. Nos.2692 and 3073 of 2008 4 6. I shall not lightly assume that the investigator is likely to arrest the petitioners straightaway without and before conducting a proper investigation and before collecting materials to indicate the complicity of the petitioners. If the petitioners have any such reasonable apprehension that they may be unnecessarily arrested, they can, of course, seek anticipatory bail or regular bail from the competent courts. I am certainly not persuaded to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the investigation against the petitioners. 7. These Crl.M.Cs are, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- /true copy/ P.A to Judge