IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3505 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CC.787/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: GEORGE KURUVILLA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1. P.D.VARGHESE, S/O.P.J.DANIEL, PATTIPARATH, CHUNGATHARA P.O., CHUNGATHARA AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3505 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No. 787/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IV, Kozhikode, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-B private complaint, after conducting inquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Magistrate issued summons to the accused under Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure-A summons issued to the petitioner/third accused was received by the office of the petitioner. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that he is impleaded as third accused on the allegation that he is the Managing Director of the second accused Integrated Stock Broking Services Private Ltd., when, in fact, CRMC 3505/09 2 he is not the Managing Director and therefore, the case as against the petitioner is to be quashed. Learned counsel also pointed out that a reading of Annexure-B complaint shows that the allegation is that first accused received the money from the first respondent complainant and there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the offence and therefore, the case is to be quashed. 2. As per Anenxure-B complaint, petitioner is the Managing Director of the second accused Company. The question whether petitioner is the Managing Director of the Company and if not, the proceedings could be continued against the petitioner are to be decided by the learned Magistrate. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate and seek an order of discharge under Section 245 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel then submitted that petitioner is in Chennai and his personal presence at the time of recording the evidence CRMC 3505/09 3 under Section 244 of Code of Criminal Procedure or hearing the question of discharge under Section 245 of Code of Criminal Procedure may not be necessary and therefore, it must be dispensed with. I find force in the submission. Petitioner is at liberty to file a petition under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate and learned Magistrate not to insist for the presence of the petitioner for recording the evidence under Section 244 of Code of Criminal Procedure or hearing the question of discharge under Section 245 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions, including the question whether he is the Managing Director of the second accused Company or not. Petition is disposed. 2nd November, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv