IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL TUESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 1049 OF 2015 (AGAINST THE CRIME NO.779/2009 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR)

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 BRIDAL KURIES PRIVATE LTD, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HENRY JOSEPH, S/O.KOCHAOUSEPH, PELLISSERI HOUSE, AMMADADAM, TRISSUR

2 HENRY JOSEPH S/O.KOCHAOUSEPH PELLISSERI HOUSE, AMMADADAM, TRISSUR

3 RAVEENDRAN P.P. S/O.PARAMESWARAN CHAIRMAN, BRIDAL KURIES PRIVATE LTD, TRISSUR, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANARA TRISSUR DISTRICT

4 JOY JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, VICE CHAIRMAN BRIDAL KURIE PRIVATE LTD THRISSUR, CHOWAKKARAN HOUSE, PULLAZHI TRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADVS.

SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERAL, KOCHI 682 031.

2 M/S. DHANASREE SERVICE SOCIETY CO.PHOTOWIVDE K.P.3502 A KUMARANELLUR PO KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, B.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O BALAKRISHNA PILLAI S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, MANGANAM PO, KOTTAYAM - 686018 SR.PP - SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON

04.12.2021, THE COURT ON 01.02.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.192/2014 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thrissur, which arose from the final report in Crime No.779/2009 of Thrissur East police station. That crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint preferred by the 2^nd respondent M/s Dhanasree Service Society represented by its Secretary, a person belonging to Mannanam in Kottayam where he alleged offences punishable under Section 294A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It has come out that, after investigation, at first the crime was referred as false. But that refer report was not accepted by the Magistrate and a further investigation was directed, basing on which the final report was laid alleging offence under Section 294A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. The petitioners are the accused in the case. According to them, the allegations against them are baseless, they have not committed any offence, no offence is made out against them. The petitioners are the Foremen of a Private Ltd company and they were conducting chitty by name Bridal Kurees with a branch in Fareedabad. The allegations in the complaint or the FIR do not disclose any offence. They had run a kuri transaction by which no prize was offered to the subscriber. There is no distribution of prize as alleged, after making any collection from the subscriber. There is no doubling scheme or otherwise to attract provisions of the Act. It is a scheme of six and a half years and in every three years, amounts have to be deposited in 50 instalments. There is absolutely no merit in the allegations that the petitioners have committed any offence. Therefore, they contend that it is really an abuse of the process of Court. The 2^nd respondent is not at all aggrieved. He is neither a subscriber to the chitty conducted by the petitioners nor had any transaction with the petitioners and he is not an affected person. Chitty transactions were conducted in a very transparent manner after publicising the scheme. The 2^nd respondent is a bogus society and therefore, entire proceedings are sought to be quashed.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complaint was first referred as false and it was under the influence of the 2^nd respondent that a charge sheet was laid after further investigation. According to him, bonus prize only is given and the said act of the petitioners does not fall under the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act. None of the subscribers had any co