Allowed

Shino Eapen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2024Crl.MC/2380/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused Nos.3 and 4 in a private complaint alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating in company affairs sought quashing of proceedings. The High Court found only vague allegations against them with no material to attract Sections 406 and 420 IPC and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners (accused Nos.3 and 4) alone in C.C.No.90 of 2015, CJM Court Kottayam, quashed.

Shino Eapen Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3962 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.90 OF 2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL

¶7

MAGISTRATE ,KOTTAYAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

¶9

SNEHA, D/O.EAPEN, KOLLATTU HOUSE,
VELLOOR, PAMPADY VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 501.
BY ADV SRI.K.M.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

2K.G.SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI
MANAGING DIRECTOR, THINK BIG FINANCIAL SOLUTION
PRIVATE LIMITED, KANDATHIL GUEST HOUSE BUILDING,
KANJIKKUZHI MUTTAMBALAM PO,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 004.
BY ADV SRI.A.K.HARIDAS
ADV.SANGEETHARAJ N R, PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.07.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2380/2016, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.Nos.3962/2016 and 2380/2016

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶20

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1946

¶21

CRL.MC NO. 2380 OF 2016

¶22

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶23

SHINO EAPEN

¶24

KOLLATTU HOUSE,VELLOOR, PAMPADY VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN:686501.
BY ADV SRI.K.M.VARGHESE

¶25

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶26

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶27

2 K.G.SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI MANAGING DIRECTOR,THINK BIG FINANCIAL SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED.,KANDATHIL GUEST HOUSE BUILDING,KANJIKKUZHI MUTTAMBALAM P.O.,KOTTAYAM,PIN:686004.

¶28

BY ADV SRI.A.K.HARIDAS ADV.SANGEETHARAJ N R

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.07.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3962/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

Crl.M.C.Nos.3962/2016 and 2380/2016

¶31

¶32

P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶33

------------------------------------------- Crl. M. C. Nos. 3962 and 2380 of 2016 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2024

¶34

ORDER

¶35

These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.90 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam. The above case is registered based on a private complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent in these cases.

¶36

The allegation in the complaint can be narrated like this:

¶37

It is alleged that, on 08.08.2013, the complainant had been appointed as the Managing Director of the company named Think Big Financial Solutions Private Limited engaged in share broking, financial investments, chitty etc,. The 1^st accused had been the Chairman of the company from 03.06.2011 onwards when the company was formed. On 08.08.2013, he was removed from the above post is the allegation. Accused Nos.1 and 2, being the

¶38

¶39

Crl.M.C.Nos.3962/2016 and 2380/2016

¶40

Directors, acted detrimental to the concern and accused Nos.3 and 4 had taken away the documents kept in the cupboards of the company is the allegation. On 02.04.2012 and on 04.04.2012, the 1^st accused had withdrawn Rs.48,348/- and Rs.40,000/- is the further allegation. It is alleged that the 2^nd accused conspired with the 1^st accused to destroy the company economically is the grievance. It is also submitted that the 1^st accused is keeping the documents and things of the company is the further allegation. The 1^st accused withdrawn the amount in favour of his wife and daughter without the knowledge and consent of others is the further submission. Hence, it is alleged that, accused Nos.1 to 4 committed the offences alleged. These Crl.M.Cs are filed to quash the proceedings against accused Nos.3 and 4.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶42

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3962/2016 was a student during the period 2011-2013 and was doing the course of Bachelor of Business

¶43

¶44

Crl.M.C.Nos.3962/2016 and 2380/2016

¶45

Administration in Girideepam Institute of Advanced Learning under the Mahatma Gandhi University and thereafter for Master of Business Administration in Saint Girls Institute of Management affiliated to the same University is the submission. According to her, in order to promote the business of the complainant company, father of the petitioner subscribed a chitty. It is also submitted that, due to non payment of installments by various subscribers who bid the chitty and on account of non repayment of the huge amounts obtained from the company by the former Directors, the cash flow of the company lost the track. It is submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3962/2016. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2380/2016 submitted that, she is a house wife. It is submitted that, even if the allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2380/2016.

¶46

This Court perused Annexure-I complaint produced in these cases. A perusal of Annexure-I complaint would show that, there is no serious allegation against the petitioners in these Crl.M.Cs. They are accused Nos.3 and 4 in the cases. The learned

¶47

Crl.M.C.Nos.3962/2016 and 2380/2016

¶48

¶49

Magistrate taken cognizance based on the complaint under Sections 4o6 and 420 of the IPC. Absolutely, no materials are there to attract the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC as far as the petitioners in these cases are concerned. Only vague statements are there in the complaint against the petitioners and a reading of the entire complaint would show that, those averments are only to implicate the petitioners without any material. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners in these cases are not necessary.

¶50

Therefore, these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners alone in C.C.No.90 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam are quashed.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶53

Sbna/15.07.24

¶54

Crl.M.C.Nos.3962/2016 and 2380/2016

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2380/2016

¶57

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PNEDING BEFOR ETHE
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM
IN C.C.NO.90/2015.
ANNEXURE II:PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16.7.2013
SUBMITTED TO KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE III:PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 16.3.2016
IN CC NO.90 OF 2015 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,KOTTAYAM.

¶58

Crl.M.C.Nos.3962/2016 and 2380/2016

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3962/2016

¶61

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
V :PHOTOCOPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF
RESPONDENT NO.2 RECORDED IN RESPECT OF
ANNEXURE I.
I :CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PENDING BEFORE THE
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM,
IN CC NO.90/2015.
II :PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESUME IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITIONER.
III :PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PASSBOOK IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
IV :PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16-7-2013
SUBMITTED TO KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION.
V(A) :PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 28-6-2014
OF WITNESS NO.1.
V(B) :PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 5-7-2014
OF WITNESS NO.2.
VI :PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-12-2015 IN
CMP NO.3171 OF 2015 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM.

Shino Eapen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shino Eapen 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.Muhammed Ismail Vs State of Kerala

Anjaneyan Ullanattu Vs the State of Kerala

Jayakrishnan Vs Benny.K.Korah

Ramesh Sahni Vs State of Kerala

Sneha Vs State of Kerala

Ramesh Vs State of Kerala