(1.) The petitioners are respectively the second and third accused in C.C. No.1385/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. The first accused is the Manager of Union Bank of India, Palarivattom Branch.
(2.) The defacto complainant is the second respondent herein. the second respondent is the Advocate Receiver appointed by the District Court, Ernakulam as per order in I.A. No.6616/2009 in O.S. No.4/2008, The third accused is the plaintiff in the said suit and the first petitioner is the counsel appearing for the second respondent. The suit was mainly one for a decree of declaration against the Cochin Devaswom Board that it has no territorial jurisdiction to pass any orders in the matter of governance of his private family Temple situated at Vennala. The contention mainly was that it was part of Travancore State and not within Cochin State. Annexure A1 is the copy of the order appointing the Advocate Receiver.
(3.) The criminal complaint is only an off shoot of the proceedings subsequent to the appointment of the Advocate Receiver. The Receiver, after taking charge of the Temple, was operating an account in the name of the Devaswom, in the Union Bank of India, Palarivattom Branch. Challenging the order appointing the Receiver R.F.A. No.158/2010 was filed by the second petitioner through the first petitioner as his counsel. This Court passed a common order in I.A. Nos.975,1140 and 1108 of 2010 as per Annexure A2. By the said interim order, the Receiver was removed with a direction to return all documents, money, gold and other articles and hand over management of the Temple and its properties to the second petitioner on production of a copy of the order. The other applications were dismissed by the very same common order. A later order was passed as per Annexure A3 in I.A. No.1282/2010 in R.F.A. No.158/2010 directing the Receiver not to open the locker and not to deposit or withdrawn any amount from the account for a period of one week. After these two orders were passed, the second petitioner approached the Bank for an account statement on 30.3.2010 which was issued as per Annexure A4. He approached the Bank along with a memo signed by the first petitioner. The bank account statement was produced along with I.A. No.1381/2010 in R.F.A. No.158/2010. In fact, in the meanwhile, the second defendant in the suit who is the second respondent in R.F.A.No.158/2010, challenged Annexure A2 order removing the Receiver, before the Apex Court in SLP Nos.9691 - 9692 of 2010 and an order of status -quo was passed initially and later an order of stay was also issued and the Receiver thus continued. Alleging that the bank account details of the Devaswm was given by the Manager of the bank which was later produced along with I.A. No.1381/2010 which is in violation of the banking statutes, the second respondent filed a complaint. The offences alleged therein are under Sections 120 -B, 406 and 420 I.P.C. True copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.848/2010 is produced as Annexure A8. The petitioners obtained bail as per Annexure A9 order. Later, the civil dispute was settled by the mediation of Justice K.T. Thomas, retired Judge of the Apex Court and R.F.A. No.158/2010 was disposed of by Annexure A10 judgment. Annexure A11 is the compromise petition filed as I.A.No.895/2012 in the said appeal. The compromise petition is signed by the second respondent herein, the Receiver of the court and one of the terms is regarding the withdrawal of the complaint upon which Annexure A8 FIR is registered. Annexure A12 is the final report in the matter. The petitioners have raised various contentions in this Crl.M.C. with regard to the sustainability of the initiation of criminal proceedings, as it is pointed out that the bank account statement is with respect to the Temple and the affairs of which was the subject matter of civil suit and also in the appeal before this Court and therefore no offence is made out. It is also contended that the first petitioner is arrayed merely as an accused for the reason that he was appearing for the third accused and for filing a petition, viz. Annexure A5 producing Annexure A4 bank account statement. It is also alleged that the Receiver has not obtained any sanction of the court for initiating the criminal action.