IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH APRIL 2011 / 6TH VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1271 of 2011() ------------------------- CRIME No.428/2011 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION --------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 :- ---------------------------------------------------- 1. T.S.BABU, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. LATE SUDHAKARAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, CHELLAMATTOM VILLAGE, OKKAL.P.O., PIN-683 550. 2. VANAJA THAMBI, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. THAMBI, THATHUPARA HOUSE, OKKAL, CHELLAMATTOM VILLAGE. 3. T.G.NARAYANAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. GANGADHARAN, THATHUPARA HOUSE, CHELLAMATTOM VILLAGE, OKKAL.P.O.-683 550. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM SRI.NELSON ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA., PIN – 682 031. 2. M.N.RAVI, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, MADAPPILLY HOUSE, OKKAL KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN – 683 550. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.1271 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 26th day of April 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.428 of 2011 of Perumbavoor Police Station for offence punishable under Secs.403, 406, 418, 420 and 120B r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). That case was registered on a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent (described as the SNDP Sakha Yogam represented by its Secretary) before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor and forwarded to the police for investigation under Sec.156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). In the complaint, it is alleged that petitioners 2 and 3 are the elected President and Secretary respectively of the Sakha Yogam (respondent No.2) and that accounts of the Sakha Yogam in the various banks are operated by petitioners 2 and 3. It is the further case of the 2nd respondent that while so, the superior body of the Sakha Yogam dissolved the Crl.M.C. No.1271 of 2011 -: 2 :- Managing Committee of the Sakha Yogam on 1.4.2010 and an administrative body took over administration of the Sakha Yogam as per resolution dated 2.4.2010. Thereafter election was held on 20.2.2011 and a new Managing Committee has taken over administration of the Sakha Yogam. It is alleged that petitioners took away the cheque books, pass books and seals of the Sakha Yogam (respondent No.2) and misusing the same withdrew various amounts from the accounts of the 2nd respondent (details of the accounts and amounts withdrawn are given in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint). It is further alleged that petitioners transferred the amounts to the personal account of the first petitioner. Petitioners 2 and 3 who were bound to protect the interest of the Sakha Yogam, conspired with the first petitioner to misappropriate its funds and thus committed offences as first above stated. 2. According to the petitioners, a civil suit in connection with the appointment of Administrator for the Sakha Yogam is pending. A writ petition was also filed for restore the status quo. Petitioners were elected to the Crl.M.C. No.1271 of 2011 -: 3 :- Managing Committee on 28-09-2008. The Managing Committee decided on 26-03-2010 (see Annexure-E minutes) to repay Rs.1,00,000/- to the first petitioner which was taken as a loan from him. Accordingly, petitioners 2 and 3 issued cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- to the first petitioner on 31-03-2010 which according to the learned counsel was even before dissolution the Managing Committee of the Sakha Yogam. Learned counsel contended that Annexures E and D would show that all the books of account of the Sakha Yogam were transferred to the superior body and that it was as per the resolution taken by the Sakha Yogam that petitioners 2 and 3 transferred the amount to the first petitioner. 3. This Court is not required at this stage to go into the correctness of the above contention since the matter is under investigation. It is for the Investigating Officer to look into the contentions raised by petitioners and see whether the alleged payment to the first petitioner was authorised by the Sakha Yogam or amounted to any offence as pleaded by the 2nd respondent. Allegations in the private complaint are to the Crl.M.C. No.1271 of 2011 -: 4 :- effect that there was criminal conspiracy between petitioners and as a result of that conspiracy payment was made to the first petitioner, the amount was transferred to the personal account of the first petitioner thus petitioners committed offences as alleged. I do not find any reason to interfere under Sec.482 of the Code and quash the proceeding at this stage. The Investigating Officer has to look into all aspects of the matter before reaching appropriate conclusion. With the above observation this Crl.M.C. is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioners to challenge the final report if any against them, if they are otherwise entitled to challenge it. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt