Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 84894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
AMIT VIJAY MASEKAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 5019/2014
SRI.M.AJAY SRI.V.P.PRASAD SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR SRI.RENJITH T.R.
The court quashed the prosecution against company officials, finding no evidence of forgery regarding the Power of Attorney, which had been validated in prior arbitration proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Allegations of forgery and cheating against company officials - The court quashed the prosecution against the petitioners, finding no basis for the allegations of forgery regarding the Power of Attorney, which had been previously upheld in arbitration proceedings. (Paras 5, 13, 14)
(B) Arbitration - The findings of an arbitrator regarding the authenticity of a Power of Attorney are significant, although not binding in criminal proceedings, and can influence the court's decision on the continuation of prosecution. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, Chairman and Director of a securities company, were accused of offences related to cheating and forgery based on a complaint by a client regarding a Power of Attorney. The complaint was previously quashed against one accused, and the arbitration award found no forgery.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations of forgery were unfounded, as the Power of Attorney was authenticated by a notary public, and the arbitration award had already addressed the issue.
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations of forgery were substantiated and the implications of the arbitration award on the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution was an abuse of process, as the allegations were not supported by evidence, and the arbitration award had already determined the authenticity of the Power of Attorney.
Result: Criminal miscellaneous cases allowed; prosecution quashed.
ORDER
These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are connected and therefore I am disposing these cases by a common order.
2. The petitioners in these cases are accused in CC No.1153/2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur arising out of Crime No.105/2009 of Kannur Town Police Station.
3. For convenience, I will discuss the facts and Annexures narrated in Crl.M.C. 546/2015. The petitioners in these cases are the Chairman and Director of M/s Kotak Securities Limited (hereinafter mentioned as the company), a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
4. The petitioners in these cases and the petitioners in the other cases are challenging the final report filed in Crime No.105/2009 of Kannur Town Police Station which was charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Section 406 , 420, 468 , 471 read with 34 of the IPC .
5. The 4th respondent complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I against one Mr. K.G.Vinod, Manager of the companies, Kannur Branch and Mr. Masekar alleging offences punishable under Section 406 , 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the IPC . The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC to the Station House OfÏcer, Kannur and consequently Annexure-X, FIR is registered. Mr. Masekar challenged Annexure-IX, complaint as well as Annexure-X, FIR registered as against him before this Court by filing WPC No. 24414/2009. The 4th respondent filed Crl.M.C.No.3850/2009 praying for direction to the State Government to constitute a Special investigation team to investigate crime no.105/2009 of Kannur Town Police Station. By Common Judgment dated 02.06.2011 in Crl.M.C.No.3850/2009 and W.P.C No.24414/2009, this Court set aside Annexure-IX, complaint filed by the 4th respondent as well as Annexure-X, FIR as against Mr.Masekar. Annexure-XIII is the true copy of the common judgment. Actually, this Court quashed the complaint as well as the FIR against Mr. Masekar, but ordered further investigation. It would be better to extract the relvant portion of Annexure-XIII, the common judgment.
“The criminal miscellaneous case and writ petition are disposed of in the following lines:
(i) Crl.M.C.No.3850 of 2009 is allowed. It is directed that an ofÏcer of the Kerala Police not below the rank of a Dy.S.P. shall further investigate the case which shall be supervised by the Superintendent of Police of the disrict concerned. It is open to the ofÏcer investigating the case to co-opt other ofÏcers in his team if he thinks it necessary.
(ii) The Superintendent of Police, Kannur shall issue necessary orders transferring investigation to such ofÏcer within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment(which shall be made available to the Superintendent of Police by the de facto complainant/petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3850 of 2009).
(iii) OfÏcer investigating the case shall look into the matter in detail having regard to the contentions raised in W.P.(C)No.24414 of 2009 as well regarding the alleged transactions.
(iv) W.P.(C)No.24414 of 2009 is allowed.
Ext.P13, complaint and P14, FIR in Crime NO.105 of 2009 of Kannur Town Police Station to the extent it concerned the petitioner/second accused are quashed.”
6. In compliance with the said direction, the 3rd respondent transferred the further investigation of the complainant to the 2nd respondent herein. It is the case of the petitioner that without making any meaningul investigation as directed by this Court, without verifying the voice recordings and without understanding that the company has no case that power of attorney executed by the 4th respondent was witnessed by a notary public and has been attested by him later on, the 2nd respondent submitted a report, before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kannur as evident by Annexure-XIV is the submission. The final report has been filed against the petitioners in addition to the original two accused. Based on the final report, learned Magistrate issued summons to
