V V VENUGOPALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused in Crime No.1262 of 2010 of Perinthalmanna Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 405, 409, 420 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a complaint preferred by respondent No.3 and forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Complaint of respondent No.3 in short, is that he, on the security of his property had availed a loan from a Co-operative Society of which petitioner is the Secretary. By installment payment he discharged the entire liability and demanded return of the original documents pledged with the Society but petitioner evaded it on some pretext or the other. On November 8, 2006 respondent No.3 made a written request to the Society to return the documents but there was no response. In the meantime respondent No.3 was able to get a certificate dated October 4, 2006 from the Society to the effect that the entire liability has been discharged by him. Even thereafter, for about three years he has been going after petitioner requesting to return the original documents but, without any response. In October, 2010 respondent No.3 made enquiries and learnt that petitioner borrowed certain amount from other financial institutions and pledged documents of respondent No.3 as security for the said transaction. Thereby petitioner is said to have committed offences as alleged. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the complaint is an abuse of process of law in that petitioner as the secretary of the Society is protected by the indemnity granted under Section 106 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short, "the Act"). It is contended by learned counsel that it is the procedure of the Society that the funds are made available by the Apex Body, (the Kerala Co-operative Housing Federation) and for the said purpose documents are entrusted with that Apex Body. Learned counsel argued that this is a fit for this Court to interfere under Section 482 of the Code. It is contended that respondent No.3 had never personally approached the Society to collect the original documents.

(2.) QUESTION whether Section 106 of the Act would apply should depend on the facts which emerge from the investigation of the case. It is for the Investigating Agency to look into whether the documents of respondent No.3 were pledged by the Society with the Apex Body as per law and procedure as contended by petitioner. Going by the averments in the complaint allegation is that 'petitioner' availed loan from some financial institutions on the security of pledge of documents belonging to respondent No.3. Whether that allegation is correct or not is not a matter which this Court is required to look into in this proceeding under Section 482 of the Code. Moreover the matter is under investigation. The Investigating Agency has the occasion and duty to look into all aspects of the matter while investigating the case. In the circumstances interference at this stage is not warranted. I however reserve the right of petitioner to challenge the final report if any filed against him before the appropriate court or to take up appropriate plea before the appropriate court at the appropriate stage. With the above observation this petition is dismissed.