IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 5015 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.51/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 5 ----------------------------- 1. SOWMYA KURIES AND LOANS PRIVATE LIMITED, ROOM NO.31, SECOND FLOOR, SAKTHAN NAGAR MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DAVI.V.THATTIL. 2. DAVI.V.THATTIL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SOWMYA KURIES AND LOANS PRIVATE LIMITED, THATTIL HOUSE, CAICO ROAD, THRISSUR. 3. K.P.FRANCIS, CHAIRMAN, SOWMYA KURIES AND LOANS PRIVATE LIMITED KOLLANNORE HOUSE, ARANATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR. 4. VINCENT DAVIES, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, SOWMYA KURIES AND LOANS PRIVATE LIMITED, ROOM NO.31, SECOND FLOOR, SAKTHAN NAGAR MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, THRISSUR. 5. E.D.JOSE, DIRECTOR, SOWMYA KURIES AND LOANS PRIVATE LIMITED, ELAVUTHINGAL HOUSE, ANJANGADI SOUTH, ARNATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND THE COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. 2. ALICE JOHN, W/O.KOKKAN JOHN, KOKKAN HOUSE, ARANATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680001. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.5015 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.51 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur requesting to quash proceeding against them contending that no criminal liability is involved and that allegations in the complaint and final report if accepted only involved a civil liability on the petitioners. 2. According to respondent No.2 who initiated the proceeding, she joined a kuri run by petitioner No.1 (petitioner No.1 is the company and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are office bearers of the company) and deposited various amounts on the representation made by petitioners that the amount will be returned on demand with 15% interest, she believed that representation and deposited the amounts. Later she demanded repayment but petitioners did not repay the amount within a reasonable time. She alleged that petitioners committed offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 415, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Complaint was sent to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) who submitted final report against petitioners as alleged. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that no criminal liability is involved and that even before filing of the complaint on 15.12.2009 petitioners Crl.MC No.5015/2010 2 offered to pay the amount by Annexure-A2, letter dated 17.11.2009 and that was not acceptable to respondent No.2. According to the learned counsel, Annexure-A2, letter would show intention of petitioners to repay the amount, it is argued. It is not as if petitioners are without any remedy assuming that no criminal liability is involved. They can seek appropriate relief before the trial court under Section 245 of the Code . In that view of the matter there is no reason why this Court should interfere under Section 482 of the Code. Resultantly without prejudice to the right of petitioners to move the trial court under Section 245 of the Code this petition is closed. It is open to the petitioners to request learned Magistrate to exempt them from personal appearance while pleading for discharge. If any such application is preferred learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders as provided under law. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks