IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2279 of 2009(F) ----------------------------------- (C.C.NO.19/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, ALATHUR) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.R.MOHANAN, PROPRIETOR, WHITE ARCHITECT ENGINEERS AND BUILDERS XVIII/409, MAIN ROAD, CHALAKKUDI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.V.HARIDAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANCHESZ HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD., P.B.NO.18, BYE PASS ROAD, MANNUTHI, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.M.C.No. 2279 of 2009 F =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 19 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A final report and the cognizance is taken for the offences under sections 415, 417, 418 and 420 IPC. 2. First respondent is the complainant. He lodged Annexure-B complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur. It was sent for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. After investigation, Annexure-A final report was filed, based on which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. This petition is filed contending that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and ingredients of offence under section 420 IPC are not attracted and, therefore, it is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor are heard. 4. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in V.Y.Jose and CRMC 2279/09 2 another V. State of Gujarat and another, (2009) 3 SCC 78, and Murari Lal Gupta V. Gopi Singh, (2005)13 SCC 699, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that as is clear from Annexure-B complaint the dispute is with regard to the quantum of work executed and the amount payable and it is purely civil in nature and therefore, the ingredients are not attracted. When learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was asked why petitioner cannot seek an order of discharge under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned counsel submitted that one witness has already been examined after filing the charge and in such circumstances, that course is not available to petitioner. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to exercise the inherent extra-ordinary powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings at this stage, as sought for. If Annexure- B complaint is read as a whole, it cannot be said that ingredients of the offences are not attracted. The question whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the ingredients is a matter to be decided by the learned Magistrate. The petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. CRMC 2279/09 3 mn.