The court upheld the trial court's jurisdiction, confirming that prima facie evidence supported the charges of forgery and misappropriation despite the petitioner's defenses.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.325/2023 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate – III, North Paravur (the Trial Court), which was originated from Crime No.8/2022 registered with the Puthenvelikkara Police Station, Ernakulam alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 , 420, 468, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC .

2. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case on the assertion that even if the allegations in Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 Final Report are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner.

3. The prosecution Case, in brief, is that the petitioner, who is the Secretary of the Thuruthipuram Service Co- operative Bank, along with the 1^st accused, who was the President of the Bank, in furtherance of their common intention, had created forged vouchers and documents against the bye- laws and rules of the Bank, and cheated the customers of the bank by misappropriating Rs.16 lakh.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence under Section 409 will only be attracted against a public servant. As the petitioner is not a public servant, the offence will not be attracted. Likewise, the petitioner was only a Secretary of the Bank, who followed the directions of the President. In the departmental enquiry conducted by the Bank, it was found that the petitioner has not caused any loss to the Bank. There was no preliminary enquiry conducted at the pre- registration of the FIR. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the trial, it is not going to lead to a conviction.

Hence, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner's culpability in the crime. A reading of the allegations in the FIR and the final report would clearly substantiate that the petitioner has committed the offences. The contentions that have been raised in the Crl.M.C. are the matters to be considered by the Trial Court. This Court may not embark upon a mini trial and hold that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations. Hence, the Crl.MC may be dismissed.

7. The essence of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner along with the 1^st accused had created forged vouchers and documents of the bank and misappropriated Rs.16 lakh and cheated the bank and its customers.

8. On going through the allegations in the FIR as well as the final report, I find that there are specific allegations attributed against the petitioner. Moreover, the prosecution has cited 32 witnesses and has produced materials to prove their case.

9. It is well-established that this Court has broad plenary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , which corresponds to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, to quash criminal proceedings. However, such inherent power, though expansive in nature, is not unbridled or unlimited. They are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and within the parameters delineated by judicial precedents. One of the elementary principles to quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in the first information report or the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same will not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (Read the decisions inState of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335],Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others [ (2023) 18 SCC 399 ],Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Others [ (2022)