N SUNDARESWARAN Vs. K K BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first accused in C. C. No. 25 of 1980 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam has filed Crl. M. P. No. 441 of 1980 seeking to quash the complaint invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'code' ). Accused Nos. 2 to 5 therein have filed Crl. M. P. No. 426 of 1980 seeking the same relief. Both these applications are opposed by the respondent-complainant.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam against the petitioners in the two petitions alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 471 and 477a, I. P. C. read with Section 34. I. P. C. with reference to the funds said to have been collected in connection with the S. N. D. P. Yogam Platinum Jubilee Celebrations by all or some of the accused. It is alleged that the collections were made on the representation that out of the collections, a building costing Rs. 10,00,000/- will be put up for housing the office of the S. N. D. P. Yogam at Quilon, that this representation was false to the knowledge of the accused even when they made the representation, that considerable part of the collections were suppressed and misappropriated and that they are not shown in the accounts of the Yogam or the Committee and also that the accounts have been falsified for this purpose. It is further alleged that the accused approached the complainant for making collections and he actually collected money from M/s. Radhakrishnan, Sreedharananda and others and handed over the money to the accused at Kottayam. It is further alleged that the Platinum Jubilee Celebration Committee was chosen by the Board of Directors of the S. N. D. P. Yogam and the accused are the office-bearers of the Committee and that of the accused, accused 2 to 4 were also members of the Board of Directors of the Yogam at the relevant time, though the first accused was not such a Director. After filing the complaint the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and the learned Magistrate issued process to the accused persons. The sustainability of the complaint is now challenged.

(3.) THE contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these two petitions may be summarised as follows: viz. , (i) that there is an implied legal bar against the reception of a private complaint in regard to offences relating to Companies coming under the purview of the Indian Companies Act, (ii) that the complaint amounts to the abuse of process of the Court inasmuch as the complainant did not have recourse to the remedies provided under the Indian Companies Act, and (iii) that the allegations in the complaint are vague and do not disclose the commission of any offence