SUNIL KALLERCKAL Vs. THOMAS DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have sought to quash the FIR registered against them in Crime No.561/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 506, 120B, 418, 420 426 read with 34 of IPC.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2. Perused the records.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the compliant lodged by respondent No.1/complainant is misconceived. The averments made therein do not disclose commission of criminal offence by the petitioners. There was no basis for the learned Magistrate to refer the complaint for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of Crimial P.C. Respondent No.1 did not produce any prima-facie evidence to show that at any point of time respondent No.1 participated in the affairs of the Company and made investments therein. There is no material to show that respondent No.1 was admitted to Company either as a Director or Shareholder. In the absence of any such material, the learned Magistrate has committed an error in referring the complaint for investigation by the Police. The learned Magistrate has failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case and mechanically referred the complaint for investigation by Police, contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court reported in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2015 6 SCC 287.