FRANCIS.T.CHACKO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.MC.1424/2019 is by accused No.2 and Crl.MC.2838/2019 by accused 1 and 3. Accused No.1 and 3 are the husband and wife and accused No.2 is their Auditor. The offene alleged are 406, 415, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 IPC. The defacto complainant is none else the bother- in-law of accused No.1. Earlier the defacto complainant and his wife were doing a business in the name and style of 'Sree Krisha Agencies' under a partnership. In the year 2007 the partnership was re-constituted by inducting accused No.1 as one of its partners and the business was successfully carried on for a longer period of seven years. Differences had arisen in the year 2014. Consequently, a settlement was arrived at by the parties to refer the settlement of account and financial differences to an arbitrator. It was also settled to give the 'Sree Krisha Agencies' exclusively to the accused No.1 and two other agencies exclusively to the defacto complainant and his wife. It is thereafter proceedings were initiated before this Court for appointment of arbitrator, which is pending consideration. It is at that time the crime was registered on the allegation that some invoices and bills were falsely foisted and fabricated in the name of fictitious people so as to cause wrongful loss to the defacto complainant and wrongful gain to the accused persons.

(2.) The accused No.3, the wife of accused No.1 is not a party to the transactions alleged. She is not a partner to the earlier firm or reconstituted firm and not a party to the settlement arrived at by dissolving the partnership. The allegation is mainly against the accused No.1. Final report was submitted without satisfying the element which would attract Section 34 of IPC and no evidence worth the name seen collected to show the involvement of accused No.3 in the commission of alleged offence. As such, the FIR and final report submitted as against the accused No.3 is an abuse of process of Court, and will stand quashed.

(3.) The accused No. 2, is only an Auditor. It is submitted that these documents were forged and fabricated with the active connivance of accused No.2. But no material was collected or produced by the investigation in that behalf except the fact that he had prepared and done the audit with respect to the business of partnership firm. Prima facie it appears that he has been unauthorizedly dragged into the crime without satisfying the element which would constitute Section 34 IPC. Hence the crime and the final report submitted as against accused No.2 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.