The court exercised its discretionary powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused based on the specific circumstances of the case.

O R D E R

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Code’), for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.827/2023 of the Kannavam Police Station, Kannur registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120-B and 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the first accused and the defacto complainant are the Co- managing Directors of the private limited company named Malabar Construction Materials Private Limited(‘company’ for short). The second accused is a director of the company and the third accused is the daughter of accused 1 and 2. The accused 1 and 2 without the sanction or permission of the company fraudulently transferred the company's property, on the strength of a fabricated resolution, in favour of the third accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri. Ramesh Chander M. the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Shynimol V. O., the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/

intervenor.

5. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime on the influence of the defacto complainant, as an arm-twisting tactic to settle the civil disputes pending between the parties. In fact, the defacto complainant has filed C.S. No.3/2023 before the Commercial Court, Thalassery, inter alia, for a decree of injunction. Along with the suit he had also filed I.A. No.3/2023 for an order of temporary injunction. The said application was dismissed as untenable. Even though the order was challenged in C.M.A. No.12/2023 before the Commercial Appellate Court, Thalassery, the same was also dismissed at the threshold. Thereafter, the defacto complainant has approached NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal), Chennai Bench, and filed an application for liquidation of the company alleging mismanagement and oppression. The petitioners are contesting the proceedings before the NCLT. However, the defacto complainant has not been able to secure any favourable order. Then, he filed W.P.(C) No.9283/2023 before this Court for an order of police protection. By Annexure A-8 judgment, this Court rejected the writ petition. Now, as a last ditch attempt, to harass the petitioners, the defacto complainant has filed the present frivolous complaint. The above sequence of events by itself establish the falsity in the crime. Actually, the company had received a notice from the Income Tax Department demanding a tax liability of Rs.6/- Crore. The company, by Annexure A2 resolution dated 09.01.2023, resolved to sell its landed properties to clear the tax liability. Accordingly, the properties were sold to the third petitioner for a consideration of Rs.1,00,97,500/- (Rupees one crore ninety seven thousand and five hundred only). The entire sale proceeds were deposited with the Income Tax Department as evidenced by Annexures A4 to A6. It is much later, to wreak vengenence on the petitioners, the defacto complainant has turned around and has alleged that Annexure A2 resolution is a fabricated and forged document. The defacto complainant’s intention is to cheat the petitioners of their hard earned money. The allegation in the complaint and FIR are purely civil in nature. The dispute is subjudice before the jurisdictional Tribunal and Civil Court. The defacto complainant had misused the GST Registration of the company and had fraudulently carried out several transactions. Later, by Annexure A10 letter he has in unequivocal terms admitted to his illegal action. The petitioners 2 and 3 are ladies. The third petitioner is only a student. At any rate, the petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. The genuineness and veracity of resolution can easily be decided in