Dismissed

O.P.Achuthankutty v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2019Crl.MC/2922/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of FIR alleging misappropriation by directors of companies. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that settlement with one shareholder is insufficient to quash proceedings in financial fraud involving multiple shareholders and public interest.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.

O.P.Achuthankutty Vs the State of Kerala — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2922 OF 2019(E)

¶6

FOR QUASHING FIR IN CRIME NO.799/2018 OF East Police Station , Thrissur ON HE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 O.P.ACHUTHANKUTTY AGED 64 YEARS S/O. GOVINDA MENON, XV/183. SHANTHI, PRETH LANE, GURUVAYOOR POST, THRISSUR - 680 103

¶9

2 O.P. BABU, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. GOVINDA MENON, NARAYANEEYAM, LAKSHMI ENCLAVE, KIZHAKUMPATTUKARA, THRISSUR - 680 005

¶10

3 UNNIKRISHNEN M.U AGED 55 YEARS S/O. UNNERI, MELEPURACKAL HOUSE, GREEN PARK AVENUE NO. 31, THIRUVAMPADY POST, THRISSUR - 680 022

¶11

4 A.S.DHARMAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O. SANKARANARAYANAN, ARUKETTY HOUSE, ENGANDIYUR P.O., THRISSUR

¶12

5 M.K. VENUGOPAL AGED 66 YEARS

¶13

S/O. KUNJAN, ALUNGAL HOUSE, MANATHALA BABY ROAD, CHAVAKKADU P.O., THRISSUR

¶14

Crl.M.C.No.2922/2019

¶15

¶16

6 V.K. SURENDRAN VADKKUMPATTU HOUSE,CHITTILAPPALLY P.O., PURANATTUKARA ROAD, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR

¶17

7 SIVARAJAN K.R. AGED 59 YEARS S/O. RAMAKUTTY, ARUKETTY HOUSE, KUNDALIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 656

¶18

8 SUSHAMA AGED 64 YEARS CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, ASWINI HOSPITAL, KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR RAOD, THRISSUR

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)

¶20

RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶21

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶22

2 A.C.PREMANANDAN S/O. CHOZHIKUTTY, C-5 ALUNGAL HOUSE, KALINDHI RESIDENCY, NEAR NORTH BUS STAND, THRISSUR

¶23

R2 BY ADV. S.MANU SMT V SREEJA-PP

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2019, THE COURT ON 11.11.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.2922/2019

¶26

¶27

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J ************************ Crl.M.C.No.2922 of 2019

¶28

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2019

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in the case registered as Crime No.799/2018 of Thrissur East police station.

¶31

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 474 and 477A read with 34 I.P.C and 120B I.P.C. The petitioners 1 to 7 are the directors of the companies by name Punarjani Securities Limited, Aswini Hospital Limited and Aswini Health Care Limited. The 8^th petitioner is said to be the Chief Accountant of Aswini Hospital at Thrissur. The case against the petitioners was instituted on the

¶32

basis of the complaint made by the second respondent, who is a shareholder of the aforesaid companies.

¶33

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.2922/2019

¶35

The crux of the allegations against the accused in the

¶36

case is that, pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by them, they have forged documents and misappropriated a total amount of Rs.5,57,99,135/- which belonged to the companies, of which they were the directors, and that they used the money for their personal purposes.

¶37

The prayer for quashing Annexur-A1 first information report in the case is made on the ground that the matter has been settled between the petitioners and the second respondent/de facto complainant.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

I have perused the affidavit filed by the second

¶40

respondent, who has entered appearance through counsel. It is stated in the affidavit filed by him that the issue has been completely settled between him and the petitioners through mediators and that he has no intention to continue the prosecution of the case and also that he has no objection to quash the proceedings in the case.

¶41

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.2922/2019

¶43

If the allegations raised against the petitioners in the complaint filed by the second respondent are true, it would mean

¶44

that the petitioners have misappropriated huge amount which belonged to the companies of which they are the directors and they have cheated the shareholders. The investigation of the case is in progress. Whether the allegations in the complaint filed by the second respondent are true or not could be found out only on completing the investigation. At this stage of the case, merely on the basis of the settlement of the matter between the petitioners and the second respondent, who is only one of the shareholders of the companies, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed. It is significant that it is not a matter which involves the interest of the second respondent alone. It is a matter which involves the interest of all the shareholders of the companies of which petitioners 1 to 7 are the directors.

¶45

The inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code should be sparingly used. Only when the Court comes

¶46

to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there

¶47

Crl.M.C.No.2922/2019 6

¶48

would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, the Court may quash the proceedings. In economic offences, interest of the society is also involved. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved (See Central Bureau of Investigation v. Manider Singh : AIR 2015 SC 3657 ).

¶49

In cases of financial fraud involving huge amount of money, this Court should be slow to terminate the criminal proceedings at an early stage on the basis of the settlement between the accused and the person who has given information regarding the offences. In these circumstances, I find that this is not a fit case in which the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised to quash the proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of any settlement or compromise.

¶50

Consequently, the petition is dismissed. It is made clear that, the merit of the allegations raised against the petitioners in the complaint filed by the second respondent, has not been considered in this order and what is considered is only

¶51

Crl.M.C.No.2922/2019

¶52

¶53

whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners could be

¶54

terminated on the basis of the settlement between the parties.

¶55

(sd/-)

¶56

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

jsr/08/11/2019

Crl.M.C.No.2922/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶62

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.799/2018 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT /2ND RESPONDENT

¶63

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶64

TRUE COPY

¶65

PS TO JUDGE

O.P.Achuthankutty v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.P.Achuthankutty v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Jaffar K.A. @ Jappu Vs State of Kerala

Krishnaprasad Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Ali Vs the State of Kerala

Satheesh Kumar, Vs K.K.Jojish