Allowed

K.J.James v. G.Jayaraj

Kerala HC1 Apr 2024Crl.MC/2868/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who was alleged to be the Chairman of a chit company, finding no evidence linking him to the firm. The Court held that a name in an advertisement notice was insufficient to establish liability for a private limited company's acts.

What did the court decide?

The proceeding against the petitioner in C.C.No.181 of 2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam was quashed.

K.J.James Vs G.Jayaraj — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2868 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.59/2014 OF Kollam East Police Station, Kollam CC NO.181 OF 2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED :

¶7

K.J.JAMES

¶8

AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT KANJIRATHINMOODU HOUSE, NEAR NSS COLLEGE, PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.AYSHA ABRAHAM SMT.ANUPA DAS SRI.S.SARATH PRASAD SRI.YASHWANTH SHENOY

¶10

RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT & STATE :

¶11

1 G.JAYARAJ AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT SREERAMAJAYAM HOUSE, MUNDAKKAL EAST, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691 001

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶13

SMT. SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 2868 OF 2019

¶17

¶18

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶19

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.2868 of 2019

¶21

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶22

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2024

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner challenges the proceedings in C.C.No.181 of 2015 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kollam in so far as he has been arrayed as the first accused. The prosecution alleges that the accused (4 in number) had cheated the defacto complainant and committed criminal breach of trust and thereby committed the offences under Sections 406, 409, 418 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶25

The issue relates to subscriptions to a chitty managed by a company under name M/s. Apple Tree Chits India Pvt. Ltd. The defacto complainant and others are alleged to have remitted amounts towards the chitty and thereafter the accused failed to return the amounts and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶26

I have heard Sri.Yashwanth Shenoy, duly instructed by Smt.Ayshamma Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The petitioner has been roped in as an accused on the allegation that he is the Chairman of M/s. Apple Tree Chits India Pvt. Ltd..

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 2868 OF 2019

¶29

¶30

Strangely, there are no materials produced by the prosecution to indicate that petitioner is in any way connected with the said company. The only material referred to by the prosecution is a notice issued regarding the inauguration of one of the branches of the aforementioned company. Reference to a name in a notice cannot be a link that connects a person with a private limited company. In the absence of any document appointing the petitioner as the Chairman or as the person in charge of the affairs of the company, petitioner can remain only as a stranger to the company.

¶31

It is apposite in this context to refer to the orders of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.5918 of 2017 and Crl.M.C.No.7774 of 2018 wherein, in similar situations, the cases against the petitioner were quashed by this Court, after noticing that there was no evidence to link the petitioner with the company or with the offence alleged.

¶32

On a perusal of the final report in the instant case, this Court notices that except for a bald allegation that petitioner is the Chairman of M/s. Apple Tree Chits India Pvt. Ltd., there is nothing on record to connect him either with the company or with the offences alleged. A notice issued as an advertisement by some stranger, cannot mulct the petitioner with criminal liability that too for the acts of a private limited company. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.181 of 2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kollam is an abuse of the process of the court.

¶33

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 2868 OF 2019

¶35

Accordingly, the proceeding against the petitioner in C.C.No.181 of 2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kollam is hereby quashed.

¶36

The Crl.M.C.is allowed as above.

¶37

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶38

RKM

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 2868 OF 2019

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2868/2019

¶42

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶43

ANNEXURE A1	CERTIFIED	COPY	OF T	HE PRIVATE COMPLAINT
	FILED BY 93/2014 BEF	THE ORE T	1ST HE CJ	RESPONDENT AS CMP M COURT, KOLLAM.
ANNEXURE A2	CERTIFIED 59/2014 OF	COPY KOLLA	OF M EAS	THE FIR IN CRIME T POLICE
ANNEXURE A3	CERTIFIED CRIME 59/20	COPY 14 OF	OF KOLL	THE FINAL REPORT IN AM EAST POLICE
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF ASSOCIA INDIA PVT L	OF TH TION TD	E ME OF M	MORANDUM AND ARTICLES /S APPLE TREE CHITS
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY PETITIONER CC NO.1194 CLASS MAGIS	OF FROM OF TRATE	THE THE 2015 -III	ORDER DELETING THE ARRAY OF ACCUSED IN OF JUDICIAL FIRST , NEYYATTINKARA
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY PETITIONER CC NO.1195 MAGISTRATE	OF FROM /2015 -III,	THE THE OF NEYY	ORDER DELETING THE ARRAY OF ACCUSED IN JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS ATTINKARA
ANNEXURE A7	TRUE COPY PETITIONER CC NO.1196 MAGISTRATE	OF FROM /2015 -III,	THE THE OF NEYY	ORDER DELETING THE ARRAY OF ACCUSED IN JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS ATTINKARA

K.J.James v. G.Jayaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.J.James v. G.Jayaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savad.P Vs State of Kerala

T.K. Gangan Menon Vs Authorised Officer

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

George Antony Vs State of Kerala

Dalu R.Das, Vs Dinesh Lal

K.J.James Vs Mr. Babu P. Kuriakose