Kerala High Court
Maniprasad vs The State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2011
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 220 of 2011()
1. MANIPRASAD, S/O.KRISHNAN PARAMESWARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. K.G.NAIR, FINANCIAL CONSULTANT,
For Petitioner :SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :28/01/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. Nos.220, 221 and 222 of 2011
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011.
ORDER
These petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1461 of 2010 of Changanassery Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.1 is a company of which accused Nos.2 and 3 are said to be the directors and accused No.4 is said to be the promoter. Crl.M.C.No.220 of 2011 is filed by accused No.2 while Crl.M.C.No.221 of 2011 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 3. Crl.M.C.No.222 of 2011 is filed by accused No.4. Respondent No.3 filed a private complaint (Annexure-II) against petitioners in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanassery which was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Police registered Crime No.1461 of 2010 based on that complaint. Case set up by respondent No.3 is that he is a financial consultant, petitioners came to him and sought help for one time settlement of their liability to the Industrial Investment Bank of India (for short, "the IIBI") with regard to a defaulted loan availed by the company for an amount of `.8.25 crores and offered `.75 lakhs to respondent No.3 as consultancy fee. Respondent No.3 agreed to the suggestion and petitioners gave Rupees five lakhs to respondent No.3 towards initial expense. It is his further case that he got engaged in the work and the IIBI offered to settle liability of petitioners at `.8.25 crores. While Crl.MC Nos.220,221 & 222/2011 2 so, petitioners issued cheque dated 06.08.2008 to respondent No.3 for the sum of `.30 lakhs. Averments in the complaint are to the effect that respondent No.3 did not present the cheque since there was a request by petitioners not to present the cheque immediately. The transaction with the IIBI was settled with the effort of respondent No.3 but petitioners did not pay him consultancy fee as promised. It is alleged that petitioners conspired together to deceive respondent No.3 and committed offences as alleged.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for accused that it is incorrect to say that accused No.4 is a promoter of the company (accused No.1) and that so far as accused No.2 is concerned, he had resigned as director of the company on 15.09.2008. It is also contended that Annexure-I produced in Crl.M.C.No.221 of 2011 would show that understanding between the company and respondent No.3 was that arrangement with the IIBI shall be completed by October, 2008 while even as per the version of respondent No.3 it was completed only by 05.02.2009 and Annexure-I in Crl.M.C.No.221 of 2011 would show that while giving the cheque for `.30 lakhs to respondent No.3 he was directed to present the same only after accepting letter from IIBI on or before October 30, 2008 or, otherwise the cheque should be returned to the company. It is also stated in Annexure-I that before presentation of the cheque the company was to be informed. Learned counsel would contend that it is because respondent No.3 was not able to settle the loan with IIBI before October 30, 2008 that the cheque was dishonoured. It is pointed out that respondent No.3 Crl.MC Nos.220,221 & 222/2011 3 could not also present the cheque in the light of condition imposed by Annexure-I, letter dated 06.08.2008. The further argument is that at any rate only a civil liability is revealed.
3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the matter is under investigation and it is premature for this Court to interfere in the matter at this stage. Since the matter is under investigation it is for the Investigating Officer to look into all matters and find what if any is the offence committed by any of the accused.
4. The settled position of law so far as intervention under Section 482 of the Code informs me that it is only to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure ends of justice that interference is required. It is not as if this Court is required to go into the correctness or otherwise of allegations made in the complaint while dealing with these petitions under Section 482 of the Code. That is a matter initially for the Investigating Officer to look into. Now the question is whether averments in the complaint are sufficient to register a case and investigate the same. In the complaint respondent No.3 has specifically stated that he was induced to deal with IIBI on behalf of the accused on the promise given by them that they will give `.75 lakhs to him as consultancy fee and believing that representation he dealt with the IIBI and the transaction was got completed. It is stated that in the meantime towards professional fee, cheque for `.30 lakhs was given to him but he did not present the cheque on time believing the words of accused that the amount would be paid along with the balance sum of `.40 lakhs and that believing that representation he did not present the Crl.MC Nos.220,221 & 222/2011 4 cheque on time. True, the accused have a different version that the transaction with IIBI was required to be completed before October 30, 2008 and otherwise respondent No.3 was not entitled to present the cheque. Truth of the allegations or contentions have to be looked into by the Investigating Officer. I am not inclined to say on a reading of the complaint that prima facie no offence is made out so that the entire proceedings are to be quashed and investigation is to be stopped. I do not find reason to interfere under Section 482 of the Code. It is for the Investigating Agency to look into all aspects of the matter and ascertain whether any of the accused are involved and if so for what offence. In the light of what I have stated above, petitioners cannot get relief as prayed for in these proceedings.
Resultantly without prejudice to the right of petitioners to challenge final report if any filed against them or to take appropriate defence before appropriate court at the appropriate stage these petitions are dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks