IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3270 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.498/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED: --------------------------- K.SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KOCHU GOVINDAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT SANTHOSH BHAVAN, OYOOR P.O., OYOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHAKKULAM POLICE STATION. 2. JOJAN, S/O.VARKEY, KAUSURAYIL VEETTIL, AVOLIKKARAYIL, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.5614 OF 2010 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3270 OF 2009 //DISMISSED// 12.08.2010. SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3270 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No.498/08 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha. The petitioner has filed the above petition to quash Annexure A2 charge against him imputing the offence punishable under Section 420 and 34 IPC. He was only an employee of a company conducting chitty business and so much so, no offence of cheating could be imputed against him is the submission of the counsel. It is the further case of the petitioner that when the chitty transaction with the company was commenced by the de facto complainant, he was not in the service of the company. It is further stated that the Directors of the company, accused Nos.1 and 2 in the case, getting themselves involved in a case of murder, the entire business operations of the company came to a stand still and subsequently, the management of the company was taken over by a Receiver appointed by this Court. So much so, the de facto complainant, at the most, could claim refund of Crl.MC.3270/09 2 the amount subscribed by him towards the chitty from the Receiver in accordance with the procedures as are applicable. Perusing the materials produced with the petition, it is seen that after thorough investigation of the crime, having found materials to connect the petitioner as well in the complexity of the grave offence imputed and on satisfaction thereof, the investigating agency has filed annexure A2 charge before the court. Whatever be the grounds available to the petitioner in defence to the charge, even including a plea of discharge, can be canvassed before the appropriate court to which the case comes up for trial. On the materials placed and on the submissions made I am not satisfied of the ground canvassed for quashing the charge, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is hence dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.12/08. Crl.MC.3270/09 3