IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 978 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.49/2011 OF KILIKOLLUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 --------------------------------------------- 1. SHINE VIJAYAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.VIDHYADHARAN VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT VIJITHA, KC 13/643, KOLLAM-4. 2. BRINDA SHINE, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.SHINE VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT VIJITHA, KC 13/643, KOLLAM-4. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU, SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. (NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SERVED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.978 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in Crime No.49 of 2011 of Kilikollur Police Station and challenge the FIR in that case for offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). A complaint was preferred to the Superintendent of Police by the managing partners of the firm alleging that petitioner purchased electric goods from the defacto complainant/complainants at Abudabi and issued cheques which were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. That according to the complainants amounted to cheating punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Petitioners challenge registration of the case on various grounds including registration of the case violating Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) in that sanction of the Central Government is not obtained for registering the case and investigating it, that the name of the defacto complainants are not specific but, they are described as managing partners of the firm and that the allegations made in the complaint even if accepted would not disclose any offence under Section 420 of the IPC. At the time of hearing learned counsel argued only one point; that the complaint does not disclose any offence under Section 420 of the IPC. Learned counsel contended that it is not shown that at the time of transaction petitioners had any intention to cheat the defacto complainant/complainants . According to the learned counsel what is involved is only a civil liability. Crl.MC No.978/2011 2 2. I have gone through the FIR where it is stated that petitioners purchased electric goods from the shop of defacto complainant/complainants at Abudabi for certain amount and issued cheques for discharge of the liability but those cheques were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. It is alleged that on account of the said act petitioners committed offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Question whether there was any intention on the part of petitioners to cheat the defacto complainant/complainants at the time of transaction and offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out or it is only a civil liability is a matter which the Investigating Officer has to look into. I do not find reason to throw out the FIR at the threshold. But the Investigating Officer has to consider whether any offence as alleged is made out or it is only a civil liability. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the issue, either way. With the above observation and without prejudice to the right of petitioners to challenge the final report if any filed against them, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks