A K UTHAMAN Vs. SEEYILESH KARSANDAS RADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. 175/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur to quash the proceedings under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that he has been arrayed as first accused in C.C. 175/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, presently residing at Alappuzha and he was earlier working as a Project Manager in a Company at Nigeria for the period from 1988 to 2004. During the year 2003, while the petitioner was in Kerala, he met with an accident and got seriously injured. Though, he returned to Nigeria, he could not pursue his employment. So he came back to Kerala in May 2004 and settled in Kerala permanently. In June 2004, the de facto complainant, claimed to be a Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner's employer Company, filed complaint stating that he had effected transfer of 2,77,150 US Dollars and 89,475 US Dollars on 27.04.2004 into his account in Kerala and 1,50,000 US Dollars as well as 89,000 US Dollars to the account of the second accused with the aid of the Director of the complainant's Company in Nigeria.

(3.) THE complaint was forwarded to the Police for investigation under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and after investigation, final report was filed on 27.06.2006 alleging commission of offences under sections 420, 406, 408, 411, 477A and 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time for producing the sanction for prosecution, which is mandatory under section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate without sanction framed charge on 12.05.2010. It appears that the Police again issued notice under section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure for further investigation without any direction from the learned Magistrate, which is against the settled position of law, reported in Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala,2012 4 KerLT 901. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following reliefs: