IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 437 of 2006 ------------------------------------- CC.317/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONERS : ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. THE URALUNGAL LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.10957, VADKARA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DIVAKARAN. K.K., SECRETARY, URALUNGAL LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.10957, VADKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. R. NISHA, D/O. P.P. RADHAKRISHNAN, `SREYAS', THAROL, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJED ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.437 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of December 2009 ORDER Petitioner No.1 is a Co-operative Society. The Secretary of the Society is petitioner No.2. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings pending against them in a private complaint filed by respondent No.1 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vadakara in C.C.No.317/2005. 2. Though respondent No.1 has been served with notice she has not appeared either in person or through counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire materials available on record. 3. The father of respondent No.1 had deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in the Society on May 22, 2004 for a period of six months. But admittedly even before the fixed deposit matured, the depositor had passed away on September 1, 2004. After the maturity, respondent No.1 requested the society to release the amount to her with interest accrued thereon, since she was recorded as the nominee in the fixed deposit certificate. However, in the meanwhile, the mother of the deceased also staked a claim for the money as a legal hair of the deceased. The society therefore directed respondent No.1 and the other claimant to produce legal heirship certificate or succession certificate as the case may be, in order to enable it to release the amount covered under the fixed deposit. Annoyed by the above view taken by the society, respondent No.1 filed annexure VII private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vadakara Crl.M.C.No.437 OF 2006 :: 2 :: against petitioners alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process to the petitioners directing them to answer the charge levelled against them. The said proceeding is sought to be quashed in this petition. 4. Admittedly, respondent No.1 and her sister had instituted a suit before the Munsiff Court, Vadakara praying for a decree to direct the society to disburse the amount covered under the fixed deposit referred to above. A copy of the plaint in the said suit is available on record as Annexure IV. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in entertaining Annexure VII complaint without any application of the judicial mind. The society could not have, under normal circumstances, especially on the face of the objection raised by the wife of the deceased-depositor, released the amount to respondent No.1 only because she happened to be the nominee in the certificate. 6. There is considerable force in the above contention. A perusal of the averments in the complaint will justify the contention of the petitioners that no offence, much less an offence under Section 406 IPC, would be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Anyhow, I do not propose to deal with that aspect of the matter any further in view of the subsequent development which has been brought to my notice. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit referred to above has already been disposed of by the Munsiff Court, and pursuant to the decision in the said suit the amount covered under one of the Crl.M.C.No.437 OF 2006 :: 3 :: fixed deposit certificates has already been released to respondent No.1 and her sister. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the amount covered under the other fixed deposit certificate will be released to the nominees/legal heirs as and when such a request is made by them. 8. In any view of the matter, having perused the averments in annexure A7 complaint, I am not at all satisfied that petitioners are liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. Therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.317/05 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vatakara are quashed. Crl.M.C. is allowed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes