K C PALANISAMI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.199/2009 of Edavanna Police Station registered under Annxure A11 F.I.R for the offences under sections 420, 468 and 471 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the F.I.R and further proceedings as against them. Annexure A11 F.I.R was registered based on Annexure A10 private complaint filed by the second respondent before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri and sent for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case of the petitioners is that none of the ingredients of the offences are attracted on the allegations raised in Annexure 10 complaint and therefore continuation of the investigation against them is only an abuse of process of court. Petitioners contended that though first petitioner was the Managing Director of the Company, he ceased to be the Director with effect from 1.4.1997 and the second petitioner ceased to be the Director with effect from 27.5.2008 and therefore when according to Annexure 10 complaint, second respondent entered into the transaction with the Company petitioners have nothing to do with United Plantation Ltd, private limited company and therefore they cannot be prosecuted. It is also contended that though third accused was the General Manager of the Company, he was removed from the service of the Company on 17.7.2009 and a public notice was issued in Tamil Dailies on 21.8.2009 and in such circumstances, petitioners cannot be prosecuted.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

(3.) Annexure 10 complaint shows that it is the case of the second respondent that on 29.11.2008 all the accused received Rs.1,00,000/- and after one week received Rs.6,00,000/-, based on a lease agreement executed on 29.11.2008 between M/s.United Plantation Ltd, the Company and second respondent whereunder second respondent was permitted to collect tea leaves for a period of three years from the Estate consisting of 104 acres. It is alleged that subsequently due to labour dispute between the workers of the Company, second respondent could not collect the tea leaves and the lease agreement was cancelled and so the accused persons orally agreed to pay Rs.6,30,000/- after deducting 10% towards their expenses. It is the case that on 1.9.2009 the accused persons came to Edavanna and made the second respondent believe that third accused is the General Manager and the authorised signatory of the Company competent to issue a cheque on behalf of the Company and believing the representation made by the accused after providing a copy of power of attorney which was attested by P.Ranga Swamy Advocate and Notary, Othakamandalam second respondent received the cheque dated 4.9.2009 for Rs.6,30,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Gudallur Branch signed by third accused as the authorised signatory of the Company. It is contended that second respondent was made to believe that the cheque will be honoured on presentation. But when the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured and second respondent sent a notice to the accused persons as well as the Company and he received reply stating that the accused persons have no connection with the Company and then second respondent came to know that the accused persons were making false representations and induced the complainant to part with Rs.7,00,000/- with the dishonest intention of cheating the complainant and issued a cheque for Rs.6,30,000/- suppressing the material facts. It is contended that accused persons thereby committed the offence under sections 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.