A criminal prosecution involving allegations of criminal breach of trust and forgery cannot be quashed merely due to the existence of underlying civil liability or minor procedural irregularities in the filing of a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, provided there is substantial compliance with legal requirements.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.06.2026, THE COURT ON 23.06.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The order dated 15.07.2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery, dismissing a petition for discharge filed by the second accused in C.C No.493/2020 on the files of the said Court, is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The petitioner herein, along with the first accused, was being proceeded against, for the commission of offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 I.P.C, upon a final report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thamarassery Police Station. The aforesaid criminal prosecution arose from a complaint filed by the first respondent before the learned Magistrate, alleging that he was cheated by the two accused arraigned thereunder, by whisking away a lorry which he had purchased, availing loan of Rs.9,07,000/- from a private financier. It was stated that the aforesaid lorry was entrusted to the second accused (petitioner herein) upon the understanding that he would make use of the income derived from the use of the said lorry for clearing the loan, after apportioning an amount of Rs.15,000/- as his profits. In the aforesaid transaction, the original records of the said lorry were said to have been handed over to the petitioner herein, while he was put in possession of the lorry in the month of March, 2016. The first respondent also contended that he had entrusted an amount of Rs.3 Lakh with the petitioner herein, for the work related to the construction of body for the said lorry. However, the petitioner is said to have gone abroad in connection with his employment, after entrusting the lorry with the first accused. In the month of March, 2019, the petitioner is said to have called the first respondent over phone and informed him that the loan for the said vehicle has been cleared, and that he should entrust with the first accused, the application duly signed for getting the No Objection Certificate from the financier. Accordingly, the first respondent claims to have entrusted with the first accused, the application signed by him for getting No Objection Certificate, making use of which, the first accused obtained the said certificate from the financier. However, the first accused allegedly refused to return back the lorry and its documents to the first respondent herein. When persistently demanded by the first respondent, the first accused is said to have informed him that the second accused (petitioner herein) had been asked to hand over the vehicle and its documents to the first respondent. Later on, the first respondent is said to have realised that the ownership of the aforesaid vehicle was transferred in the name of the first accused, by making use of forged documents. It was thus alleged by the first respondent that the accused had affixed his forged signatures in the relevant forms and presented the same before the Regional Transport Office concerned, for getting the vehicle transferred in the name of the first accused.

3. The complaint filed by the first respondent in the above regard, was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Thamarassery Police registered the FIR and proceeded with the investigation which culminated in the filing of the final report, revealing the commission of the aforesaid offences by the petitioner herein and the first accused.

4. The petitioner herein approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C No.5300/2023 und