N. VASAVA PANICKER, SECRETARY, PIRAVANTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. PIRAVANTHOOR Vs. S. SASIKALAKUMARI, VALUTHUNDI KIZHAKKE PUTHEN VEEDU, PAIMANATHOOR IN VAMBALA MURI PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE de facto complainant, who was the Secretary of the Co -operative Society is the revision petitioner. A complaint was filed by him against eight persons alleging misappropriation of funds of the Society and also alleging forgery, falsification of accounts etc. That complaint filed before the Magistrate was forwarded to the police for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Pursuant thereto, Crime No. 73/1989 was registered by Punalur Police. Investigation was conducted in that case. The final report under Sec.173(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed by the police only against the 4th person shown in the complaint. That means, charge sheet was laid against only one person. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that a reservation clause was also there in that final report to the effect that after getting a detailed audit report from the Auditor concerned, separate charge sheet would be filed against other accused, if their complicity is also established. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the complaint (CMP No. 1905/1989) besides Sec.409 IPC, Secs.465, 468, 477A and other sections were also there. But the final report was filed only under Sec.409 IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that subsequent to the filing of the final report against one accused as mentioned above, a detailed audit report was obtained from the Deputy Registrar of Societies (Audit, Kollam) and pursuant thereto the then Sub Inspector of Police, Punalur without noticing the earlier registration of the crime and the filing of final report against one accused with a reservation clause, registered a fresh FIR as Crime No. 501/1996 under Secs.403, 405 and 201 r/w 34 IPC. It appears when the final report was filed earlier against one accused out of the eight persons mentioned in the complaint, the case was taken cognizance by J.F.C.M. -III, Punalur as C.C.No. 352/1990. That case was subsequently transferred by the CJM, Kollam to J.F.C.M. -II (Forest Offences), Punalur where the case was re -numbered as C.C.No. 269/1994.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, the complainant again filed Crl.M.C.No. 3832/1997 before This Court. Another OP was filed as O.P.No. 26672/1999. The aforesaid OP was filed for a direction to the Secretary to Home, Government of Kerala to entrust the investigation in Crime No. 73/1989 to any other investigating agency and to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible. A report was filed by the investigating officer in that case stating that the incident in question relates to the same matter in Crime Nos.73/1989 and 501/1996 and that all persons were inducted as accused in C.C.No. 269/1994. It was observed by This Court in O.P.No. 26672/1999 mentioned above that since all the accused were then made as accused in Crime No. 73/1989 no further relief is necessary and so, OP was disposed of accordingly. In Crl.M.C.No. 3832/1997 also, based on the same report filed by the police as referred to above and taking note of the fact that all the accused persons were made as accused in Crime No. 73/1989 holding that no further relief was necessary, Crl.M.C. mentioned above was also disposed of accordingly.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the accused/respondents submits that in the meanwhile, an application was filed by the accused persons in C.C.No. 313/1997 mentioned earlier for an order of discharge under Sec.245(1) Cr.P.C. That petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate. Since the other accused persons were discharged by the learned Magistrate as per order dated 4.10.1997, the successor Magistrate found that there was only one accused remaining and so, issuance of summons to all the accused was not correct. It was also observed by the learned Magistrate that it was wrongly submitted by the investigating officer before the High Court that all the accused were inducted in C.C.No. 269/1994. Thus, it would appear that confusions were created in the proceedings through out.