Kerala High Court
Vasanth A. Devadika vs M/S. Driplex Water Engineering Ltd on 18 September, 2025
CRL.MC NO.49/2020 1
2025:KER:69035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025/27TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO.49 OF 2020
CRIME NO.168/2018 OF AMBALAMEDU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
CC NO.363/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, CHOTTANIKKARA
PETITIONER:
VASANTH A. DEVADIKA,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.AITHAPPA TOMAR DEVADIKA,
DIANA VILLA, OPP. GOVERNMENT HEALTH CENTRE,
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA
BY ADV SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 M/S.DRIPLEX WATER ENGINEERING LTD.,
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT DRIPLEX HOUSE, 1,
PANCHSHEEL COMMUNITY CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110017,
HAVING SITE OFFICE AT BPCL COCHIN REFINERY,
AMBALAMUGHAL, ENRKAULAM DISTRICT
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
AMBALAMEDU POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682303
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
BY ADVS SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
SMT.MAYA M.N., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.49/2020 2
2025:KER:69035
ORDER
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2025 This Crl.M.C. is filed invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in CC No.363 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chottanikkara. Petitioner is the accused in the said crime, charged of committing an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code
2. The short facts leading to the case, according to the petitioner, are as follows: The defacto complainant is the Regional Executive Director of one M/s.Driplex Water Engineering Ltd. who had been awarded a contract for installation of a water treatment plant at the premises of BPCL Cochin Refinery at Ambalamukal. As part of the implementation of the said work, a subcontract was given for the fabrication of various types of storage tanks to one M/s.Anugraha Engineering of which the petitioner/accused is the Director. Since M/s.Anugraha Engineering did not complete the work, the de facto complainant issued a termination letter to them. Later, in between 24.10.2015 and 21.01.2016, the petitioner/ CRL.MC NO.49/2020 3 2025:KER:69035 accused trespassed into the office of the de facto complainant at BPCL compound and committed theft of documents worth Rs.7,98,00,000/-. Petitioner refutes the allegation and seeks to quash the complaint and all further proceedings thereto, alleging inter alia abuse of process of law contending that the transaction was purely one of a civil nature and the subject matter is already involved in civil litigation/ arbitration.
3. Heard Sri. Sunny Mathew, Advocate for the petitioner and Smt.Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor. Sri.Varghese C.Kuriakose, Advocate, was heard for the 1 st respondent/de facto complainant.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the averments and allegations contained in Annexure A1 Final Report in C.C.No.363 of 2016, on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chottanikkara, even if it is assumed for argument sake to be true, will not constitute the essential ingredients of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, Annexure A1 Final Report is fit to be quashed. It is contended that the disputes between the defacto complainant and the Company M/s.Anugraha CRL.MC NO.49/2020 4 2025:KER:69035 Engineering is essentially a civil dispute between a contractor and his subcontractor and yet another contractor to whom the work was entrusted. It is contended that such civil disputes cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution. There are several proceedings, including an arbitration arising out of the dispute that are underway and in the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner has already entered in appearance and have defended the claim by filing a statement of defence and a counterclaim, as early as on 01.05.2017. It is contended that even in the arbitration proceedings, the defacto complainant has no case that the petitioner has appropriated the documents as alleged in Annexure A1. Moreover, the said documents have been produced before the Arbitrator as part of the arbitration proceedings. The ingredients to lay an offence under Section 406 IPC have not been revealed. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Mohan A.M. v. State represented by SHO [2024 KHC 6160] to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had deprecated and had expressed concern about a growing tendency in the business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The Hon'ble court had observed that the same was obviously CRL.MC NO.49/2020 5 2025:KER:69035 on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time-consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. There is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. The Hon'ble Court had further held therein that though no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law should himself be made accountable at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings in accordance with law. Reliance is also placed on the dictum in Radheshyam v. State of Rajasthan [2024 KHC 6449], where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the question whether a case of non- performance of an agreement to sell constitutes an offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, and an FIR filed under the same is liable to be quashed. It was held therein that if the FIR does not spell out any element or ingredients of cheating or breach of trust, a mere non-performance of an agreement to sell by itself does not amount CRL.MC NO.49/2020 6 2025:KER:69035 to cheating and breach of trust and FIR is liable to be quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the comparable fact situation of the said case, further elaborated that if the ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR are not made out against the accused, no offence can be said to have been committed by them. The act of the accused may at best constitute a civil wrong and does not call for any criminal action against him. A civil wrong cannot be given a criminal colour merely to coerce the accused and a judicial process cannot be used as a tool to enforce a specific performance demand. All the said ingredients justifying the quashing of the crime and Final Report are stated to be present in the case at hand, and the learned counsel prayed that the Crl.M.C. may be allowed, and Annexures A1 and A2 may be quashed.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that based on first principles, and going by the FIR and Charge Sheet, if an offence is made out, then the question of quashing the same does not arise. Heavy reliance is placed on the statement given by one Sri.Bifin Jose, who was working as a Supervisor in M/s.Anugraha Engineering. He had CRL.MC NO.49/2020 7 2025:KER:69035 stated that M/s.Anugraha Engineering had taken on subcontract, the work of M/s. Driplex Water Engineering Ltd., which in turn was undertaken for BPCL and that as instructed by the petitioner, he has taken the relevant files from the office of M/s.Driplex at BPCL premises and handed over the same to the petitioner. He has stated that the said files had not been returned since then. He went on to further state that the petitioner had taken advantage of the practice of making photocopy copies of the files and subsequently returning the same. Sri.Bifin Jose, has further stated that the petitioner had used him to obtain possession of the relevant files and had, after getting hold of the same, concealed the files to wreak vengeance for having terminated the contract with M/s.Anugraha. If the said files are not returned, Driplex Company will not be able to complete the works and cannot hand over the site or get their bills passed. Based on the said statement of Sri.Bifin Jose, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel that the contentions put forth in the Crl.M.C. are all questions of fact and need to be tried out in a trial. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent thus seeks to dismiss the Crl. M.C. CRL.MC NO.49/2020 8 2025:KER:69035
6. I heard the counsel in detail and have perused the Annexures produced. It is trite that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised with great care and circumspection. In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the steps that should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as follows:
"(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/ complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal CRL.MC NO.49/2020 9 2025:KER:69035 Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2013)]"
7. As regards the offence of criminal breach of trust under Sections 405 and 406 IPC with which the petitioner has been charged, put succinctly, the essential ingredients of the said offence include the entrustment/handing over in trust of property, or dominion over property for administration and dishonest misappropriation or conversion of such property for ones own use or dealing with such property dishonestly in violation of a legal contract or direction, either express or implied thus leading to a wrongful gain or wrongful loss. If these ingredients are prima facie made out, then the prayer for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. And quashing the Final Report would fail.
8. After hearing both sides and perusing the Annexures, I note that the Final Report impugned herein cannot prima facie be termed to be frivolous, motivated or malicious prosecution to justify the exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Final Report inter alia refers to statement of Sri.Bifin Jose who is none other than an employee of M/s.Anugraha Engineering of which petitioner is the Director. The said statement explicitly implicate the CRL.MC NO.49/2020 10 2025:KER:69035 petitioner. I find that the statements recorded by the other person also prima facie support the police case against the petitioner. The essential ingredients of the offence of 406 IPC are prima facie made out. I find that the mandates laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra) to justify the invocation of Section 482 to quash the Annexures are non existent in this case. I am convinced that ends of justice would not be served by quashing the Final report at the threshold.
9. Consequently, the prayers sought in the Crl.M.C. for quashing Annexure A1 Final Report is declined. All issues are left open, and nothing stated herein above shall be construed as addressing the merits of the charges or the defence.
Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl CRL.MC NO.49/2020 11 2025:KER:69035 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 49/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 363/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHOTTANIKARA.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/10/2015 ISSUED BY M/S.DRIPLEX WATER ENGINEERING LTD.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/11/2015 ISSUED BY M/S.ANUGRAHA ENGINEERING TO THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/12/2015 ISSUED BY M/S.DRIPLEX WATER ENGINEERING LTD. TO M/S. ANUGRAHA ENGINEERING.
ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10/12/2015 ISSUED BY M/S. ANUGRAHA ENGINEER TO M/S. DRIPLEX WATER ENGINEER LTD.
ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/01/2016 ISSUED BY M/S.DRIPLEX, WATER ENGINEERING LTD. TO M/S. ANUGRAHA ENGINEERING AND M/S. VELANKANNI ENGINEERS.