IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3663 of 2006 ------------------------- CC.219/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... PETITIONER:/ ACCUSED: ----------------------- SHRI G.THOMAS, AGED 54, S/O. GEORGE, WORKING AS SENIOR CLERK, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.NO.2836, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM P.O., PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM DIST. AND RESIDING AT CHARUVILAKIZHAKATHIL, EDAKKADU, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNATHU TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.TWINKLE GEORGE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, SASTHAMCOTTA. 3. AMBALATHUMBHAGOM SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD. NO.2836, PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM DIST.,REP. BY THE PRESIDENT. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANADU. ADV. SRI.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR FOR R3 SRI.D.VINOD NAIR FOR R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO. 6020/2006 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 3663/2006 DISMISSED. 7-11-2008 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.M.C.NO.3663 of 2006 ======================== Dated this the 7th day of November 2008 ORDER The petitioner herein has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-4 charge sheet in C.C.No.219/2006 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcottah. 2. The petitioner, who was working as Counter Executive in Edakkad Extension Counter of Ambalathubhagam Service Co- Operative Bank Ltd.No.2836, was suspended as per the charge memo dated 30-6-2006 on the allegation that he had caused loss to the Bank of Rs.4,07,800/- by receiving imitation ornaments for sanctioning loans to various persons. Annexure-1 is the true copy of the charge memo. Copy of the written statement filed by the petitioner herein before the Bank is produced as Annexure-2. Thereafter, a complaint has been filed by the second respondent, Assistant Registrar(General) of Co-Op. CRMC.3663/2006 -2- Societies, before the 4th respondent on the basis of which Crime No.312/2005 was registered under Sections 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against nine persons as revealed from the copy of the F..I.R.,Annexure-3. Subsequently, another charge sheet was filed, copy of which is produced as Annexure-4, wherein the petitioner was impleaded as the first accused and also incorporated Section 409 of I.P.C. The petitioner herein is challenging Annexure-A4 and the consequential proceedings before the Magistrate Court in this petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the third respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence can be made out against the petitioner as per Annexure-4 charge sheet. The learned counsel has relied on Annexure-5 report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, Mr.P. Muraleedharan Nair, Advocate, Sasthamcottah, to substantiate the innocence of the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that the ingredients under Section 409 and 420 I.P.C. CRMC.3663/2006 -3- are also absent in the complaint and in the F.I.R. to proceed against him. 4. . The learned counsel for the third respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer in this petition. It is also submitted that this Court cannot decide at this stage whether the ingredients are there to attract the offence under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C., which is the duty of the trial court. According to him, the allegations in this petition itself is against the case put forward by the petitioner and that it cannot be presumed at this stage that the petitioner is innocent. 5. I have gone through the allegations in this petition and also the documents produced by the petitioner to support his case. Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is not sitting in appeal or in revision. This Court cannot decide whether there are sufficient ingredients to prove the case of the prosecution against the petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R. or whether the report of the enquiry officer is correct and binding. This is an extra ordinary jurisdiction to this Court which can be applied only sparingly and with great caution. CRMC.3663/2006 -4- Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no reason to quash the F.I.R.,Annexure-4, and consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotah . The Crl.M.C.is dismissed. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.