MARTIN DAVIS AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.2076 of 2017 of the Nedumbassery Police Station registered under Sections 406, 420, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

(3.) The aforesaid crime was registered at the instance of one Rajan John who alleged that the petitioners had cheated him of a sum of Rs 1.25 Crores. According to the de facto complaint, the petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife respectively. They were successfully running an establishment by name Mr.Cook at Angamaly. The 3rd petitioner was their employee. The de facto complainant came down to India in the year 2015 after spending more than 35 years in Switzerland. He wanted to invest in some business. While so he happened to meet the 1st petitioner. He managed to induce the de facto complainant to become part of his new endeavor. He was told that the 1st petitioner intends to tap the home appliances market by opening franchises all over Kerala under the brand name Mr.Cook Super Shoppee. He was assured that he would be made a partner in the business and some documents were executed. Believing the words of the 1st petitioner, the de facto complainant transferred a sum of Rs. 95 lakhs through his Bank and a sum of Rs. 29 lakhs was handed over by way of cash. A total sum of Rs. 1.25 Crores was thus entrusted with the 1st petitioner. According to the complainant, without investing the amount in the partnership, the amounts were misappropriated for his personal needs. He was not provided with profit or interest. Disputes arose and the matter was mediated. On 1.11.2017, an agreement was entered into between the 1st petitioner and the de facto complainant by which the de facto complainant was assured that a total sum of Rs. 1.25 Crores would be repaid within 10 years. Until then the 1st petitioner undertook to pay a sum of Rs.One lakh per mensem towards interest. However, till the date of filing of the complaint, no sums were paid. When the amount was demanded back, the de facto complainant was allegedly threatened and intimidated by the petitioners. Hence, the complainant.