IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3213 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 245/08 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. T. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. SHANKUNNI, THEKKETHIL VEEDU PUTHUR, P.O. AKALOOR OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. V.P. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR, 'GOKULAM' P.O. AKALOOR, OTTAPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHUBA ALIAS RATNAKUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. MADHAVAN, KACHAMKUNNIMMEL HOUSE AKALOOR, OTTAPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD DIST. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3213 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 406 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Altogether there are four accused persons. 2. The crux of the allegations against them is that they in the name of rendering humanitarian service to the defacto complainant, a person, who needs immediate heart surgery, collected money from the members of the public. Accused 1 and 2 are the local committee Secretary of CPI(M) and the Panchayat President. Accused 3 and 4, i.e. the petitioners herein, are the Block Panchayat member and Panchayat member in the locality. Accused 1 and 2 are the Convener and Chairman of the committee. The petitioners herein are the Patrons of the said committee. It is alleged that large amounts were collected from the members of the public, but the entire amount was not properly accounted. A portion of the amount so collected was Crl.M.C.No. 3213 of 2008 2 deposited in a bank account. From the bank account huge amounts were withdrawn. Payment was made to the petitioner only of a paltry amount of Rs.6,000/- He contends that there has been culpable breach of trust and misappropriation of funds. He filed a private complaint before the J.F.M.C., Ottapalam. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is pending. The petitioners have now come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the F.I.R. registered alleging commission of offences by them. 3. Two contentions are raised. First of all it is contended that the ingredients of the offence of cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation are not attracted at all. There is no contract between the petitioner and the accused persons. 4. Less said about the said contention the better. It is evident that the members of the public have contributed amounts in the hope that such payment shall enure to the benefit of the complainant. The complainant contends that contrary to the terms of entrustment of money by the public to the accused persons on behalf of the petitioner, the amounts have been misappropriated by them. Only a meager Crl.M.C.No. 3213 of 2008 3 amount has been paid to the petitioner and the rest of the amounts have been swallowed by the accused. Of the amounts deposited in the account, what has been withdrawn has not been paid to the complainant. 5. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion on merits about the allegations raised or the acceptability of the materials collected. Suffice it ti say that I am satisfied that at any rate this is not a fit case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. need be invoked. 6. Secondly it is contended that even if accused 1 and 2 had withdrawn amounts, the petitioners can have no responsibility for the same. The allegation of culpable misconduct is against all members of the committee, who had collected the amounts and had not paid the same to the complainant. It would be hazardous for this Court at this stage to attempt to apportion liability among the members of the committee. I do not intend to express any final opinion on the contentions raised. Suffice it to say again that I am not persuaded to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in favour of the Crl.M.C.No. 3213 of 2008 4 petitioners now. The police must be given opportunity to investigate into the complaint and come to necessary conclusion on the basis of the materials collected. 7. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. I may re-iterate that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to urge all contentions before the Investigating Officer or the court at later stages. (R. BASANT) Judge tm