IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1070 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.1909/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI, IN CRIME NO. 66/04 CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER(S): 4TH ACCUSED -------------------------------------------- JOHN KURIAN PERIAPURATH,PERIAPURATH HOUSE,MUTHOLAPURAM.P.O,ELANJI-686665, BY ADV. SRI.VINUCHAND RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT /STATE ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULM. 2. SANTHOSH THOMAS,S/O.O.J.THOMAS, OLASSA DALE,VYTTILA,ERNAKULAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1070 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 29th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the fourth accused in C.C.1909/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kochi, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A1 final report submitted by Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Central Police Station. Second respondent is the de facto complainant. 2. Though notice was served on the second respondent, he did not appear. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. By Annexure-A2 order in Crl.M.C.601/2008 dated 30/11/2009, after hearing the second respondent herein also, cognizance Crmc 1070/10 2 taken against accused 3,5,7 and 8 was quashed finding that the final report does not show that they are either the Directors of the company or as Directors they were responsible for the business and the management of the affairs of the company and allegations is only that first accused gave advertisement and second accused was the legal advisor and they received the amount which was misappropriated. Case against the petitioner is also identical to the case against accused 3,5,7 and 8. In such circumstances, case against the petitioner also can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. Cognizance taken in C.C.1909/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kochi against the petitioner, the fourth accused is quashed. The M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.