Dismissed

Videocon Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Oct 2010Crl.MC/345/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings. It held that since summons were issued mistakenly to petitioners who are not the original accused, the Magistrate is barred from proceeding against them, and no quashing order was necessary.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition was dismissed, declaring the petitioners are not the accused and the Magistrate cannot proceed against them.

Videocon Industries Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 345 of 2010() -----------------------CC.717/2007 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE-I, CHANGANASSERY

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.1,2,3, AND 5. :- -------------------------------------------

¶6

VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. 14 KMS STONE, AURANGABAD-PAITHAN ROAD, CHITEGAON, TALUK, PAITHAN, AURANGABAD DISTRICT - 431105. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VENUGOPAL N.DHOOT.

¶7

VENUGOPAL N. DHOOT, S/O. NANDLAL DHOOT, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD; FORT HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR,221.DR.D.N ROAD, MUMBAI 400001.

¶8

PRADEEP N. DHOOT, S/O. NANDLAL DHOOT, DIRECTOR, M/S. VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD; FORT HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR,221,DR.D.N.ROAD, MUMBAI 400001.

¶9

THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD; "SANTHI EMERALD", III FLOOR, CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI - 682020. M.A. RAFE, S/O. LATE M.A.ABU, BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN SMT.USHA NARAYANAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT. ---------------------------

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

SRI. BITTY JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH GEORGE, PROPRIETOR - JOJO ELECTRONICS, SALIM COMPLEX, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA SRI.C.S.MANU FOR R2

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.345 of 2010

¶16

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2010

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

On receipt of Annexure B to E summons,

¶19

Petitioners filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.717 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First

¶20

Class Magistrate-I, Changanassery as against them contenting that Annexure A complaint based on which C.C.No.717/2007 was taken cognizance by learned Magistrate, the accused are different and

¶21

therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is only an abuse of process of the court.

¶22

Though notice was served on the second

¶23

respondent the complaint before the Magistrate, he did not appear. Annexure A complaint shows that first accused is Akai Consumer Electronics India Limited. Second accused its Managing Director, third accused is a Director and fourth accused its

¶24

Sales Manager. The offences alleged in Annexure A

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.345 of 2010 2

¶26

complaint are Sections 406, 417,418,465, 467,468,469,471 and 474 r/w S.143 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure B summons was served on First petitioner in that case. First petitioner is Vedeocon Industries. Annexure C summons was served on the

¶27

second petitioner in his capacity as Managing Director Vedeocon Industries. Annexure D summons was served on the third petitioner in his capacity as Director of Vedeocon Industries. Annexure E summons served on the fourth petitioner in his capacity as Branch Manager of Vedeocon Industries. As the

¶28

complaint is filed against Akai Consumer Electronics

¶29

Limited, and its Managing Director, Director and Sales Manager, petitioners who have nothing to do

¶30

with Akai Consumer Electronics India Limited cannot be summoned to appear in that case by Judicial First Class Magistrate. Hence a report was called for as

¶31

to how summons happened to be issued to the

¶32

petitioners. The report submitted by the learned Magistrate shows that in CC No.717 of 2007 cognizance was taken not for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as shown in Annexure B

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.345 of 2010 3

¶34

to E summons but for the offences under Sections 406, 417, 418, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 474 r/w Section 143, 149 of Indian Penal Code. The report further shows that when the summons sent to the accused shown

¶35

in Annexure A complaint were returned, stating that addressees left the address, fresh summons was ordered in the correct address second respondent furnished new address based on which Annexure B to E summons were issued. The learned Magistrate submitted that it was issued without noticing that the summons was in the name of different persons and are not the original accused company its Managing Director, Director and Branch Manager. The learned Magistrate submitted that it was by mistake, summons happened to be issued and the offence was wrongly shown as Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate also reported that when the official memorandum was received, a memo was issued

¶36

to the counsel appearing before the learned Magistrate to explain how a different address was furnished, and it was represented that it was for the

¶37

reason that Akai Consumer Electronics India Ltd was

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.345 of 2010 4

¶39

amalgamated with Vedeocon Industries. Learned Magistrate also pointed out no material was produced to prove the amalgamation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner asserted that there was no

¶40

amalgamation as claimed by the counsel before the learned Magistrate.

¶41

CC.No.717/2007, there is no necessity to quash the proceedings as against them. Petition is disposed declaring that petitioners are not the accused in CC.No.717/2007 and Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,

¶42

Changanassery cannot proceed against them.

¶43

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE.

¶44

Videocon Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Videocon Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.Sugunan Vs State of Kerala

K.T.Joseph, M.D.Indo Scottish Distillery Vs the State of Kerala

Vinod M Vs Namitha

S.D.Pradeep Vs Sukumara Pillai

K.Ganesan Vs Bank of Baroda and Others

Thankachan Vs the State of Kerala Rep.by Public Prosec