IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that allegations of misappropriation and cheating warranted further investigation, emphasizing the High Court's limited role in assessing cognizable offences.

ORDER :

The petitioner originally filed the Crl.M.C. seeking to quash FIR No.31/2008 of Airport Police Station, Nedumbassery and all further proceedings pursuant to it. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Police submitted final report before the jurisdictional Court. The petitioner thereafter incorporated the relief to quash the final report by way of amendment in the Crl.M.C.

2. The prosecution was initiated based on a complaint filed by respondent No.1 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva. The learned Magistrate directed registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

3. The allegations in the complaint filed by respondent No.1 are as follows:-

The complainant/respondent No.1 is the investor, authorized Manager and Signatory of a company by the name and style “Labib Trading and Contracting L.L.C.” having its office in the Sultanate of Oman. Sri.Muhammad Abdul Vahab, her husband, started the company in 2002. Her husband died on 3.2.2005 due to cardiac arrest. After the death of her husband, the complainant became the shareholder of the company and took charge of the affairs of it. The petitioner/accused is the brother-in-law of her husband. He is an Electrical Engineer by profession. He was working in Dubai at the time of the death of her husband. As nobody was there to look after and manage the affairs of the company, respondent No.1 appointed the petitioner/accused as Manager of the company on a monthly remuneration of 1000 Riyals. She executed a power of attorney No.190/2005 dated 3.5.2005 in favour of the accused authorising him to represent her in connection with all affairs of the company. The accused was managing the day-today affairs of the company, including the bank transactions, from 3.5.2005. He managed the affairs of the Company till 18.8.2008. The accused was a full time employee of the Company. He unauthorisedly withdrew a total sum of Rs.8,78,00,000/- during the period from 3.5.2005 to 18.8.2008 from the account of the company by misusing the power given by the petitioner. The amount so misappropriated has been transferred to his personal account and the account of his wife in various banks in Kollam District. The accused intentionally misappropriated the assets of the company and thereby defrauded the complainant and obtained wrongful gain causing wrongful loss to the complainant. At the commencement of the employment in the company the accused had the intention to misappropriate funds owned by the complainant. When he realized that the complainant’s son came to know of the misappropriation committed by him he terminated his employment and left Oman. The complainant came to know that the accused purchased properties in various parts of Kerala using the money misappropriated from the account of the company and he is keeping the balance sum in his accounts and the accounts of his wife in different banks. The accused forged the signature of the complainant for submitting certain applications before the departments concerned for the purpose of obtaining illegal gain. He is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The case of the petitioner/accused is as follows:-

M/s.Labib Trading and Contracting L.L.C., Sultanate of Oman is owned and managed by an Omani National namely Mr.Masoud Bin Muhammed Bin Nasser Al Mahrani. The husband of respondent No.1/complainant late C.M.Abdul Wahab was an employee of the company in April, 2002. Abdul Wahab acquired shares in the company. Sri.Abdul Wahab died on 3.2.2005. The petitioner had been working as an Electrical Engineer and Engineering Consultant in Dubai. After the death of Sri.Abdul Wahab, respondent No.1 requested the service of the petitioner to manage the affairs of the company. As per Annexure III order of appointment, he joined duty in July, 2005. As per the relevant clause in Annexure III order of appointment, the petitioner was given full freedom to take, withdra