Amjadh Mohamed Senor v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.
Judgment Date: 2021-03-24
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. The entire proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.211/2019, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, on the basis of Annexure-D final report, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Amjadh Mohamed Senor (Senior Area Sales Manager, HPCL)

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Narendran C., S/o K. Chandrasekharan Nair
K. Thajudeen, HPCL dealer, Polayathodu, Kollam East, Kollam City, Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• E.K. Nandakumar (Sr.)
• K. John Mathai
• Joson Manavalon
• Kuryan Thomas
• Raja Kannan
• Parvathy Kottol
• M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar

Counsels for Respondents

• Harish Gopinath
• B. Jayasuriya (Sr. PP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No.4553 of 2020) filed by Amjadh Mohamed Senor, the second accused and Senior Area Sales Manager of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). The applicant challenged the proceeding in C.C.No.211/2019, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, arising from FIR No.183/2019 based on a complaint that diesel was adulterated and caused damage to a car. The prosecution alleges that the second accused, while employed by HPCL as a senior manager, did not act upon the complainant’s report of adulteration; on 19.08.2018 he obtained a test report in favor of the first accused, who ran the petrol pump dealer, suggesting no adulteration, and thereby aided the suspect. The core issue is whether the allegations, even if true, amount to the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC, or whether the proceedings amount to abuse of process. The High Court held that there is no allegation that the petitioner sold adulterated diesel or had a dishonest intention to cheat the complainant; there is no commonIntent with the first accused constituting 420/34 IPC. Consequently, continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process, and the court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., citing the principle in B.R. Zaveri v. State of Maharashtra as supportive authority.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)Section 34 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.CSection 156(3) Cr.P.C

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Abuse of the process of the court.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that even if all allegations in the final report are true, they do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. He argues that there is no sale of adulterated diesel by him, no dishonest intention to cheat, and no involvement in the purported adulteration linked to the original seller. The accused’s action of obtaining a test report on 19.08.2018 is not shown to constitute cheating or cheating created by him. Consequently, the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, and should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the second accused acted to obtain a test report in favor of the first accused, which would facilitate wrongdoing. They argue that the conduct could be indicative of misappropriation of funds or deceit in connection with the adulterated diesel case, and that the case should proceed to determine the ingredients of Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.R. Zaveri v. State of Maharashtra	AIR 1981 SC 476	Mentioned Only	Cited to support the proposition that absence of the requisite elements of 420 IPC with aid of 34 IPC does not sustain the prosecution; used as supportive authority for quashing.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **Crl.MC.No.4553 OF 2020(H)** **AGAINST C.C.NO.211/2019 DATED 03.02.2019 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:** **AMJADH MOHAMED SENOR AREA SALES MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, KOLLAM EAST, KOLLAM CITY, KERALA, INDIA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.RAJA KANNAN SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED NO.1:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2 NARENDRAN.C. S/O.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, LEKSHMI BHAVAN, VALATHUNGAL P.O., ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM CITY, KERALA-691 011.** **3 K.THAJUDEEN, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION DEALER, POLAYATHODU KOLLAM EAST, KOLLAM CITY, KERALA-691 001.** ## **R2 BY ADV.SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI B JAYASURYA SR PP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2021, THE COURT ON 24.03.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No.4553/2020 2 ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J** ************************ Crl.M.C.No.4553 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of March, 2021 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is the Senior Area Sales Manager of the company, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). He is the second accused in the case C.C.No.211/2019 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam. 2. The case against the accused was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the second respondent (hereinafter referred to also as 'the complainant') in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. After completing the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kollam East Police Station filed final report (Annexure-D) against the two accused persons for the offence Crl.M.C.No.4553/2020 3 punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case is as follows: On 17.08.2018, at about 07:30 hours, the complainant purchased diesel for Rs.2,369.58/- and filled it in his car KL-02-AV-8736 from the petroleum products retail outlet by name 'M/s.K.Thajudeen' which was conducted by the first accused. When the car was driven for some distance, it started shivering. On inspection of the car at the showroom, it was found that the diesel filled in the car was mixed with water and serious damage had been caused to the internal parts of the vehicle. The complainant informed the matter to the second accused, who was the Senior Area Sales Manager of HPCL. But, the second accused did not take any action in the matter. However, on 19.08.2018, the second accused, with a view to help the first accused, took sample of diesel from the petrol pump conducted by the first accused and got a report, which is favourable to the first accused, that there was no adulteration of the fuel. The first accused, the dealer, sold adulterated diesel to the complainant and thus cheated him. Crl.M.C.No.4553/2020 4 The second accused assisted the first accused by obtaining a test report in his favour. Thus, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. This application is filed by the second accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings taken against him on the basis of Annexure-D final report. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The only allegation against the petitioner in Annexure-D final report is that he prepared test report in favour of the first accused in respect of the sample of diesel collected from the petrol pump conducted by the first accused. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, even if the entire allegation against the petitioner in Annexure-D final report is accepted as true, it will not attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against him. _Per contra_ , learned counsel for the second respondent contended that, it was only on 19.08.2018 that the Crl.M.C.No.4553/2020 5 petitioner took sample of the diesel from the petrol pump conducted by the first accused and it was done with a view to get a favourable test report in favour of the first accused. 9. As per the allegations in Annexure-D charge-sheet, it was the first accused who was conducting the petrol pump and who sold the adulterated diesel to the complainant. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner took sample of the diesel only on 19.08.2018 from the petrol pump conducted by the first accused and that he had deliberately caused delay in taking the sample with a view to obtain a test report which is favourable to the first accused, his act or omission does not attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he sold adulterated diesel to the complainant and thereby, he committed the offence of cheating. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he shared common intention with the first accused to sell adulterated fuel to the complainant. The act allegedly committed by the petitioner is not sufficient to implicate him for the offence allegedly committed by the first accused, with the aid Crl.M.C.No.4553/2020 6 of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had no role in selling adulterated diesel to the complainant. There is no allegation that he had any dishonest intention to sell adulterated diesel to the complainant and to cheat him. 10. It is also pertinent here to note that, there is no allegation against the petitioner that, though he took sample of the diesel only on 19.08.2018, the test report obtained in respect of that sample was manipulated by him as if it was a test report in respect of the diesel which was sold by the first accused on 17.08.2018 or as if it was a test report in respect of the sample which was taken on 17.08.2018 itself. 11. When there is no allegation against the petitioner that he deceived the complainant and thereby induced him to part with money or to purchase adulterated diesel, he cannot be implicated for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 34 of that Code (See **B.R.Zaveri v.** ## **State of Maharashtra : AIR 1981 SC 476** ). 12. The entire allegations against the petitioner, contained in Annexure-D final report, even if they are accepted as true, will Crl.M.C.No.4553/2020 7 not attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court. It follows that it is a fit case in which the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 13. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The entire proceedings against the petitioner in the case C.C.No.211/2019 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, based on Annexure-D final report, are hereby quashed. (sd/-) **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr Crl.M.C.No.4553/2020 8 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 4553/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A** **A COPY OF THE DEALERSHIP AGREEMENT DATED 28.11.2018 ENTERED BY AND BETWEEN HPCL AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1.** ## **ANNEXURE B** **A CERTIFIED COPY OF CRL.MP N0.1007/2019 DATED 29.01.2019 FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT BEFORE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM.** **ANNEXURE C A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.183 OF 2019 REGISTERED BY THE KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION.** ## **ANNEXURE D** **A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 03.02.2019 IN FIR NO.183 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM.** ## **ANNEXURE E** **A COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 16.03.2020 IN CALENDAR CASE NO.CC 211/19 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE MAGISTRATE.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE