IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
Ashok Kumaran @ Sabu C., S/o. Chandrasekhara Pillai & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. MC Nos. 6042, 5901 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, 188 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 4, 420, 468, 471, 34 - Forged documents - Offence of cheating - Petitions filed seeking to quash all further proceedings - There are absolutely no materials either in complaint or in statement given by witnesses to effect that petitioners made a false document. (Para 19)
Finding of the Court :
Learned Magistrate has not chosen to record that final report is not accepted - Records also don’t show that Magistrate has considered relevant materials and applied his mind - Furthermore, as held by this Court, a second complaint will lie only if there was any manifest error or manifest miscarriage of justice in previous order or if complainant relies on new facts or materials which were not to his knowledge or with reasonable diligence could not have been brought forward in previous proceedings - Magistrate will have to diligently scrutinize allegations in complaint, weigh supporting oral and documentary evidence, and determine whether a prima facie case is made out against all or any of accused - This is more so in a case where directors of a Company are sought to be roped in for acts committed by Company, particularly when Company which committed act is not arrayed as an accused - Order by which process has been issued to accused is set aside.
Result : Petitions allow.
ORDER :
These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for the sake of brevity), seeking to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.417/2021 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate court, Alappuzha.
2. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.5901/2022 is the 1st accused, and the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.6042/2022 are the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C.No.417/2021 in the above case. They are facing prosecution for having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, and 471 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
3. Short facts are as under
a. In the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent before the NRI Cell of the Kerala Police, it is alleged that he had worked as Manager in M/s Nasser S Al Hajri and Partners General Trading and General Contracting Company (hereinafter referred to as "Al Hajri GCC"), a company owned by the 1st accused. It is further alleged that Nasser S Al Hajri Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Al Hajri Corp") is another company owned by the 1st accused, with a presence only in Saudi Arabia. Al Hajri Corp is not entitled to take contract work in Kuwait. In order to secure a work contract in Kuwait, the accused is alleged to have created a bogus identity as a Subcontractor of Flour Daewoo and Hyundai for a project with Kuwait Petroleum. It is further alleged that Al Hajri Corp manipulated records and forged the signatures of over 2,000 employees of Al Hajri GCC and made the employees work on the project. It is further alleged that employees of Al Hajri GCC were not eligible to work on the project and were not eligible for Workmen's Compensation under the Insurance Scheme. The accused is also alleged to have forged the documents to make it appear that Al Hajri GCC had an endorsement certificate of insurance policy from a Kuwaiti Insurance Company for its employees, including the complainant. The complainant and other employees were issued fake identity cards with insurance policy details. As per the law in force in Kuwait, all the employees of a contracting company are required to have a valid insurance policy for their workmen who are engaged at the site. While working on the project, the complainant was allegedly diagnosed with a pathological illness/occupational hazard. He had to be hospitalized for extended periods. He raised a claim for insurance, which was rejected on the ground that he was not covered under a valid insurance policy.
b. On the strength of the above complaint, Crime No.949/2018 was registered by the Alappuzha North Police Station on 19.4.2018. It appears that the Crime was transferred to the Kollam West Police Station, and the same was re-transferred to the Alappuzha North Police Station. Finally, Annexure-A7 final report was submitted on 1.7.2019, wherein it is stated that though the investigation conducted by the police and the witness statements disclosed that the de-facto complainant was persuaded to work in the company by making him believe that he was covered under an Insurance Scheme, the police is not able to come to a conclusion as to the place of occurrence of the offence. Accordingly, the case was referred to as a “mistake of fact,” and requested the Court to remove the case from the file.
c. On receipt of summons from the court, the complainant approached the learned Magistrate and filed a protest complaint. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and two of his witnesses. After conducting a preliminary inquiry, the learned Magistrate was of the view that the statement of the complainant, witnesses, and the documents produced by the complainant disclosed that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate also took note of the statement of the investigating officer that the investigation disclosed that the accused persons have committed the crime and therefore decided to take
State Trading Corporation of India, Ltd. v. CTO
Mehmood UI Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.
Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat
GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd.
The complaint was not maintainable without the company being made a party to the proceedings, and the direction to investigate the matter after receiving the complaint was in violation of Sec. 202 of....
The liability of officers of a company under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is contingent upon their involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the company, and the prosecutio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes, and vicarious liability of directors requires specific averments showing their i....
Summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter – Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course – In order issuing summons, Magistrate has to record his satisfaction about ....
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on directors solely by virtue of their positions; specific allegations of wrongdoing must exist for criminal liability to be established.
Point of law: Cheating – private complaint - Court has to examine whether the material on record is sufficient and whether the Magistrate is satisfied with the allegations in the complaint
Dishonour of cheque – Company is a juristic person and Company can have criminal liability—In case of commission of offence by company, express condition of company being joined is imperative to attr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.