Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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/ 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.

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 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. 2025:KER:69035

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.