The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.456/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi taken cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 409, 415, 417, 418 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in Annexure-B final report is that the accused is the owner of Bridge Way Furniture & Decor, a company engaged in contractual work at Abudabi, U.A.E. The accused gave sub contract on some work to the company named Liwa Electrical and Sanitary Contracting owned by the complainant. It is alleged that as per the agreement, the company of accused has done the entire work entrusted to him, but the petitioner is not making payment as per the contract and thereby committed a loss of Rs.33,70,18.50 U.A.E. Dirham, which come around Rs.43,81,240/-. The petitioner even after obtaining money from the building owners, refused to pay the amount to complainant and thereby committed cheating of the above said amount, is the further allegation. The allegation in Annexure-B will not constitute any criminal offence. The said allegations does not have ingredient of cheating and criminal breach of trust. As per the allegation, the offence was committed outside India, but there is no prior sanction obtained from the Central Government as per proviso to Section 188 of the Cr.P.C.to conduct inquiry or trial. Therefore, the petitioner prays for initiating Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. inorder to quash the entire proceedings.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor has objected and argued that the contract agreement was executed within India. So, prior sanction from the Central Government is not required.

3. Heard both sides. According to the petitioner's counsel, the 2nd respondent has filed a private complaint before the JFCM-II, Kochi as C.M.P.No.4420/2010, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the SHO, Mattanchery and Crime No. 1157/2010 was registered against him for the above said offences. The certified copy of the FIR is produced and marked as Annexure-A. Later, the crime was investigated by the Circle Inspector of Police, who after completing the investigation submitted a final report as against the petitioner for the offences cited supra. The learned Magistrate has accepted the final report and took cognizance for the offences as against the petitioner. The case was taken into file as C.C.No.456/2011. The certified copy of the final report is produced and marked as Annexure-B. According to the petitioner's counsel, the de facto complainant suppressed the real facts, misleading the court and influencing the police managed to file Annexure-B Final Report. In fact, the investigating officer has not conducted any investigation at Abudabi, where the alleged companies of both the accused and the de facto complainant are performing. The investigating officer has blindly relied on the documents produced by the de facto complainant and has submitted a final report, without even scrutinizing the authenticity of those documents. In fact, the alleged act of offence was committed at Abudabi, that is outside the jurisdiction of India. Therefore, the learned Magistrate is not empowered to conduct any “enquiry” into the case without prior sanction of the Central Government. Highly aggrieved by the above said act, the petitioner has approached this Court inorder to quash the entire proceedings. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no question of cheating in this case. Section 405 of the IPC deals with criminal breach of trust, which defines that “in order to attract such offence, there must be entrustment of property or with any domain over property”. In order to attract Section 409 of the IPC, “there must be a breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent”.

According to the petitioner's counsel, the petitioner is not a public servant, banker, merchant or agent, there is no such allegation in the final report and therefore, the said Section of off