High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition dismissed; ASJ's directions upheld wit...

A.O. Anto and Ajith Anto v. The State of Kerala and Navodaya Kuries Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.2733/2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • G. Girish
Judgment Date
2025-04-07
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is dismissed; the order of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur is upheld. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate must pass fresh orders in compliance with the directions of the ASJ, providing reasons for directing further investigation.
Final Disposition
Petition dismissed; ASJ's directions upheld with requirement of reasoned fresh CJM order in compliance with ASJ.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • A.O. Anto
  • Ajith Anto

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrissur Town East Police Station (Crime No. 3373/2016) and by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 682 031.
  • Navodaya Kuries Ltd., represented by its Power of Attorney Holder and Present Director Thomas K. Davis

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • N. M. Madhu
  • • Sri. P. P. Harris
  • • Smt. C. S. Rajani

Counsels for Respondents

  • • G. Sreekumar (Chelur) for R2
  • • Smt. Seetha S., Sr. Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal Misc. Case (Cril.M.C.2733/2020) arising from Crime No.3373/2016 of Thrissur Town East Police Station. Accused Nos.1 and 3 (A.O. Anto and Ajith Anto) challenged a Chief Judicial Magistrate’s (CJM) order directing further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The prosecution, led by the State and Navodaya Kuries Ltd., alleged misappropriation by the accused while they served as chairman/office-bearer of the second respondent company, involving forged documents and transfer of Rs.82,110 to the second petitioner’s kuri account, triggering a refer-report to the CJM. The CJM’s cryptic order directing further investigation was set aside by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur, who remanded for a speaking order. The petition contended the revision petition against the CJM order was not maintainable, and that the order should contain reasons, failing which it would be unsustainable. The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that while the ASJ correctly noted the absence of reasons in the CJM order, the CJM must pass fresh orders in compliance with the ASJ’s directions. The judgment reiterates the need for reasoned, speaking orders in criminal investigations while leaving the door open for a fresh, properly reasoned decision by the CJM.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.CSection 173(8) Cr.P.CSection 156(3) Cr.P.CSections 403, 406, 409, 417, 420, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Reasoned / speaking orders mandatory (principle cited from The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others, JT 2010 (2) SC 566)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order directing further investigation under 173(8) Cr.P.C was cryptic and lacking reasons; they challenged maintainability of the revision against that order and sought quashing the order on grounds of non-reasoned order, insisting that a speaking order with reasons is mandatory and that the refer-report procedure should be properly addressed within law.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contended that the orders directing further investigation are to be considered and necessary directions to conduct fresh investigation could be passed, and that the revision should be upheld as per law; they supported the ASJ’s approach to require a reasoned order, and urged the CJM to pass fresh orders in compliance with the ASJ’s directions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and OthersJT 2010 (2) SC 566PositiveCited to underscore the necessity of reasoned, speaking orders by judicial authorities, aligning with the principle that cryptic orders are unsustainable.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against A.O. Anto and Ajith Anto v. The State of Kerala and Navodaya Kuries Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

2025:KER:29237 Crl.M.C.No.2733/2020 1 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 2733 OF 2020 ``` ``` CRIME NO.3373/2016 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRRP NO.39 OF 2019 OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ``` ``` ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER IN CRMP NO.2139 OF 2017 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/1ST AND 3RD ACCUSED:`** ``` 1 A.O.ANTO, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, ARAKKAL HOUSE, AMBAKKAD DESAM, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT NO.1-A, FIRST FLOOR, PARK LAND APARTMENTS, THRISSUR DISTRICT-1. 2 AJITH ANTO, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ARAKKAL ANTO, ARACKAL HOUSE, AMBAKKAD DESAM, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT NO.1-A, FIRST FLOOR, PARK LAND APARTMENTS, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 1. ``` ``` BY ADVS.N.M.MADHU SRI.P.P.HARRIS SMT.C.S.RAJANI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR TWO EAST POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.3373/2016) AND BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. ``` 2025:KER:29237 2 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.M.C.No.2733/2020 ``` 2 NAVODAYA KURIES LTD., GROUND FLOOR, PARKLAND REGENCY APARTMENTS, AMBAKADAN JUNCTION, THRISSUR TOWN REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND PRESENT DIRECTOR THOMAS K.DAVIS, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KALLUKKARAN DEVASSY, THALORE DESOM, THALORE VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R2 SMT. SEETHA S., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON 07.04.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2025:KER:29237 Crl.M.C.No.2733/2020 3 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **O R D E R** Accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.3373/2016 of Thrissur Town East Police Station have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the order dated 29/02/2020 of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur, in Crl.R.P.No.39/2019. The aforesaid Crl.R.P was filed challenging the order dated 27.04.2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, in Crl.M.P.No.2139/2017 directing further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The crime was registered by the Thrissur East Police in respect of the offences under sections 403, 406, 409, 417, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C, as per the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C upon a complaint filed by the second respondent. The allegation in the complaint was that while the first petitioner was the Chairman of the second respondent company, he misappropriated an amount of Rs.82,110/- by using forged documents, and transferred the same to the second petitioner’s kuri account. After the completion of the investigation, the police filed a refer-report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that the dispute involved was of civil nature. The second respondent/de facto 2025:KER:29237 Crl.M.C.No.2733/2020 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 4 complainant filed an objection to the refer-report vide Crl.M.P.No.2139/2017. In the aforesaid Crl.M.P, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed a cryptic order as follows: ”Complainant is present. Forwarded to S.H.O. Thrissur Town East for further investigation u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C.” It is the aforesaid order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which the petitioners challenged before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thrissur, by filing Crl.R.P.No.39/2019. 3. In the aforesaid Crl.R.P, the petitioners raised multiple challenges including the maintainability of a revision petition against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directing further investigation, the scope of ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, and also the cryptic nature of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, without any reasonings. In the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to accept all the above challenges of the petitioners except the contention that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had not passed a speaking order stating the reasons for directing a further investigation. Referring to the observations of the Apex Court in **The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others [JT** 2025:KER:29237 Crl.M.C.No.2733/2020 5 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **2010 (2) SC 566]** , about the need to incorporate reasons in the orders passed by the judicial authorities, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without assigning reasons is totally unsustainable. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27.04.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.2139/2017, and directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass fresh orders on the objection filed by the second respondent/de facto complainant to the refer report, in accordance with law. It is the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur, which the petitioners seek to quash in the present petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 5. As already stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur set aside the order directing the further investigation on the ground that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not assign any reasons for passing such an order. The matter was remanded back 2025:KER:29237 Crl.M.C.No.2733/2020 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court for fresh consideration, and to pass orders on the objection filed by the second respondent/de facto complainant to the refer report filed in this case. It is obvious from the above order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that, the order to be passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the matter of further investigation shall contain the specific reasoning for arriving at the decision taken thereunder. The observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the above regard, is perfectly right. 6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have stated in the order passed by her, about the reasons why she decided to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. So also, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have made it clear in the impugned order about her view on the objections raised by the second respondent/de facto complainant to the refer-report filed by the police. Therefore, the prayer in this petition to quash the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur, cannot be accepted. Needless to say that the present petition filed by the petitioners, can only fail. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed, upholding the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur. However, it 2025:KER:29237 Crl.M.C.No.2733/2020 7 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** is made clear that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall pass orders in compliance with the directions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur, uninhibited by the previous order passed by the Magistrate directing further investigation. (Sd/-) **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** jsr 2025:KER:29237 Crl.M.C.No.2733/2020 8 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2733/2020`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** |**`ANNEXURE A1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE`**| |---|---|---| ||**`RESPONDENT.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE A2`**|**`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT`**|**`FILED AGAINST`**| ||**`THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER BEFORE THE CHIEF`**|| ||**`JUDICIAL`**<br>**`MAGISTRATE`**<br>**`COURT,`**|**`THRISSUR`**<br>**`AS`**| ||**`C.M.P.NO.6151/2016.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE A3`**|**`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.3373/2016`**|| ||**`OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE A4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`**|**`08/04/2016 IN`**| ||**`CRL.M.C.NO.640/2016`**<br>**`PASSED`**<br>**`BY`**|**`THE`**<br>**`SESSIONS`**| ||**`JUDGE, THRISSUR.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE A5`**|**`TRUE`**<br>**`COPY`**<br>**`OF`**<br>**`THE`**<br>**`FINAL`**<br>**`REPORT`**<br>**`IN`**<br>**`CRIME`**|| ||**`NO.3373/2016`**<br>**`OF`**<br>**`THRISSUR`**<br>**`TOWN`**|<br>**`EAST`**<br>**`POLICE`**| ||**`STATION AS R.C.NO.92/2016.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE A6`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED`**|**`BY THE SECOND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT TO ANNEXURE A5.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE A7`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`**|**`27/04/2017 IN`**| ||**`ANNEXURE`**<br>**`A6`**<br>**`PASSED`**<br>**`BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL`**|| ||**`MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE A8`**|**`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`**|**`29/02/2020 IN`**| ||**`CRL.R.P.NO.39/2019 PASSED BY THE`**|**`III ADDITIONAL`**| ||**`SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE A9`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 21/03/2016`**|| ||**`SENT BY THE PETITIONER.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE A10`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED`**|**`26/03/2016 TO`**| ||**`ANNEXURE A9.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE A11`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1885/2016 ON`**|| ||**`THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE A12`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE`**|| ||**`ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE A13`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LAWYER`**|**`NOTICE DATED`**| ||**`30/03/2016.`**|| **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## 2025:KER:29237 Crl.M.C.No.2733/2020 9 **`ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT COMPANY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-2015. ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT COMPANY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2015-2016.`**