CRL.MC 3060/2020 & WP(C) 13746/2020 (Raj Mohan and AbooBacker Siddique v. State of Kerala; Rajeev K.M. @ Rajee Menon v. State of Kerala)

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## `CRL.MC NO. 3060 OF 2020` ``` [AGAINST ANNEXURE-1 FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.316/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IX, ``` ## `ERNAKULAM]` ## `PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:` ``` 1RAJ MOHAN AGED 54 YEARS S/O. RAMAN, MAMBRA HOUSE, PONNANI TALUK, MARANCHERY VILLAGE, KANJIRAMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE AGED 55 YEARS S/O. HAMSA, PUKAYIL BAZAR MECHERY HOUSE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.S. SREEKUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE ADV. V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031 (THROUGH CBCID, EOWII, ERNAKULAM). 2RAJEEV K.M.@ RAJEEV MENON AGED 44 YEARS S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, HEERA SAIBER VIEWS, II B, EDACHIRA, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 030. R1 BY JACOB E. SIMON, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY BY ADV M.REVIKRISHNAN ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).13746/2020, THE COURT ON 5.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 2 ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.` ``` TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 13746 OF 2020` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` RAJEEV K.M @ RAJEEV MENON AGED 45 YEARS S/O RADHAKRISHNAN,KALLOORMADATHIL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT '11 B',HEERA CYBER VIEWS, KAKKANADU,KOCHI-682030. ``` ``` BY ADV. M.RAVIKRISHNAN ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.` - `2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695014.` - `3 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CITY,ERNAKULAM-682031.` - `4 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH,ERNAKULAM,VAIKOM ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM-682301.` - `5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM-682025.` - `6 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM-682025. BY ADVS SRI.JACOB E.SIMON, PUBLIC PROSECUOR.` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8.11.2023 ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3060/2020, THE COURT ON 5.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 3 ## `O R D E R` ``` Both these cases are arising from Crime No.166/2019 of Palarivattom Police Station, which was initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406,420,465,467,468 and 471 r/w. ``` ``` Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against two ``` ``` persons, who are the petitioners in the above Crl.M.C. ``` ``` 2.The said Crime was registered based on a ``` ``` private complaint submitted by the defacto complainant, the petitioner in WP(C) No.13746/2020, ``` ``` before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, ``` ``` Ernakulam alleging the aforesaid offences. The same ``` ``` was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), and the FIR was registered for the offences referred to above. After conducting the investigation, the Police ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 4 ``` submitted final report, which is produced as Exhibit ``` ``` P2 in the said Writ Petition for the offences punishable under Sections 417,465,471 r/w Section 34 ``` ``` of the Indian Penal Code and the cognizance thereon was taken by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam as C.C.No.316/2019. ``` ``` 3.The main allegations against the accused in ``` ``` the complaint submitted by the defacto complainant were as follows: ``` ``` The defacto complainant was a person engaged in ``` ``` the business of Cable T.V. The accused persons who ``` ``` were also conducting Cable T.V. business approached ``` ``` the defacto complainant to start a TV channel in ``` ``` Dubai, and he was asked to invest money to start an ``` ``` office here in Cochin. Based on the said ``` ``` understanding, 66000 US Dollars were invested by the ``` ``` wife of the defacto complainant. The specific ``` ``` understanding between the defacto complainant and the ``` ``` accused was that upon making investments, he would be ``` ``` made as the Director of the Company floated by the accused persons, viz. M/s Worldon HD TV Pvt.Ltd, ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 5 ``` which was established to broadcast Malayalam programs ``` ``` in UAE. Accordingly, as per the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 5.8.2016, which was produced as Annexure A2 in the Crl.M.C, the defacto complainant was appointed as the Additional Director of the Company subject to Section 161 of the Companies Act, 2013 and he was supposed to hold the office till the date of the next annual general body meeting of the Company. It was also contended by the defacto complainant that at the relevant time, the wife of the defacto complainant was having a channel frequency licence under the name ‘Minerva Media Solutions’ at UAE, which was obtained from the authorised agency Multimedia LLC (E-Vision). The accused started broadcasting programs in the name of Worldcon HD TV with effect from 9.6.2016 by using the channel frequency licence of the wife of the defacto complainant. Later, the accused persons formed another Company, viz. Worldon Media TV LLC and made the E-Vision authorities in UAE believe that Worldon Media TV LLC is a subsidiary company of Worldon HD TV ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 6 ``` Pvt.Ltd clandestinely obtained a channel frequency ``` ``` licence in the name of Worldon Media TV LLC and ``` ``` thereby cheated the defacto complainant. It is also alleged that later, the accused persons, in ``` ``` furtherance of their common intention, had created a ``` ``` document purporting to be the minutes of the Annual General meeting of the Company held on 30.12.2017 at ``` ``` the registered office at Symphony Tower, 11[th] floor, ``` ``` Vyttila, Ernakulam, to the effect that, the annual general body meeting did not approve the appointment ``` ``` of the defacto complainant as the Director of the Company as no one proposed the resolution for continuation of the defacto complainant as the Director of the Company. Accordingly, he was removed ``` ``` from the Directorship of the Company. Thus, it is contended by the defacto complainant that after ``` ``` collecting huge amounts from the defacto complainant, the accused persons have cheated him by clandestinely ``` ``` removing him from the Directorship after creating false documents. He also alleged misappropriation of the amounts invested by the defacto complainant. ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 7 ``` The crime was registered in such circumstances, which ``` ``` culminated in the final report as referred to above. ``` ``` 4.The Writ Petition was submitted by the ``` ``` defacto complainant seeking further investigation into the matter as according to him, the Police did ``` ``` not conduct a proper investigation. ``` ``` 5.On the other hand, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C No.3060/2020, contending that, the final report submitted in this case which is produced as Annexure- ``` ``` 1 in the Crl.M.C. does not contain necessary ``` ``` materials to attract any of the offences alleged against the accused persons under sections 417, 465, ``` ``` 471 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. ``` ``` 6.Heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior ``` ``` Counsel for the petitioners in Crl. M.C who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid crime and ``` ``` Calendar case, Sri.M.Ravikrishnan, the learned ``` ``` counselappearingforthepetitionerin ``` ``` WP(C)No.13746/2020, the defacto complainant in the ``` ``` aforesaid crime and Sri. Jacob E. Simon, the learned ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 8 ``` Public Prosecutor for the State. ``` ``` 7.For convenience, the parties herein are ``` ``` referred to as per their ranks in the Calendar Case. ``` ``` 8.The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused persons is that, even if the allegations in the final report are accepted for their face value, those will not attract ``` ``` the offences punishable under Sections 417, 465, 471 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. It was pointed out that, ``` ``` according to the prosecution, the accused had ``` ``` committed the offences by way of forging the ``` ``` documents to create a resolution of the Board of ``` ``` Directors of the Company to remove the defacto ``` ``` complainant from the directorship of the Company. ``` ``` The learned Senior Counsel places reliance upon Annexure-3, which is the minutes of the meeting signed by the shareholders of the said Company, which would clearly indicate the conduct of the meeting on 30.12.2017 at Jomer Symphony Tower, 11[th] floor, Vyttila, Ernakulam. In response to the allegation against the accused that the premises referred to ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 9 ``` above were not available for the Company to hold a meeting as on 30.12.2017, the learned counsel places reliance upon Annexure-4, which is a communication issued by the owner of the said building in which it was mentioned that he had indeed given the said location to the accused persons for conducting a meeting of M/s. Worldon HD T.V on 30.12.2017. ``` ``` Therefore, it was contended that the allegations ``` ``` raised are false. Besides the same, it was also the ``` ``` case of the learned Senior Counsel that, in view of ``` ``` the fact that the shareholders who participated in the meeting signed the minutes of the meeting, it would not attract the offence under Sections 417, 465 and 471 ``` ``` r/w. Section 34 of the IPC as no forgery is made out. ``` ``` 9.On the other hand, the learned counsel ``` ``` appearing for the defacto complainant opposes the said contentions by pointing out that the specific case of the defacto complainant was that no meeting was ``` ``` conducted on 30.12.2017 at the premises of Jomer Symphony Tower, 11th floor, Ponnurunni, Ernakulam as claimed by the accused persons. He asserts that, ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 10 ``` Annexure-3 is a forged document and the Police also ``` ``` after investigation found that no such meeting was ever convened as claimed. Annexure 4 also cannot be ``` ``` relied on at this stage. It was pointed out that, as both the documents are disputed documents, the veracity of the same is to be established during the course of the trial. Therefore, the contention of the accused cannot be agitated in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.PC as it requires factual analysis for which appreciation of evidence is absolutely ``` ``` necessary. ``` ``` 10.I have gone through the records. The ``` ``` specific contention of the defacto complainant is that the Annexure-3 document cannot be relied upon at this stage as, according to the prosecution, no meeting, as claimed by the accused persons, was ever convened at Jomer Symphony Tower, 11[th] floor, Vyttila. ``` ``` To substantiate the said allegations, the prosecution ``` ``` has already cited two witnesses viz. CW3 and CW4. CW3 was the Caretaker of the said building who had stated that, the Company of the accused persons were ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 11 ``` functioning in the said building only till the month ``` ``` of July, 2017. CW4 was the Manager (Customer ``` ``` Relationships) of M/s. Jomer Properties and Pvt.Ltd, ``` ``` Ponnurunni, the building in which the meeting of the Company was claimed to have been conducted on 30.12.2017. The statement of the said witness is also ``` ``` in tune with CW3. Thus, it is evident that the specific case of the prosecution is that no such meeting, as claimed by the accused persons, was ``` ``` conducted on 30.12.2017 in the said premises as the ``` ``` Company was not in possession of the said building at ``` ``` the relevant time. Thus, as the said aspect is a ``` ``` disputed question of fact, that cannot be adjudicated ``` ``` in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.PC. As rightly ``` ``` pointed out by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, the resolution of the said dispute ``` ``` requires appreciation of evidence which can be done only during the course of trial. Therefore, the said contention is only to be rejected at this stage. ``` ``` 11.The next contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that the offence under sections 465 ``` ``` CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & ``` _`WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 12 ``` and 471 of the IPC would not be attracted as the ``` ``` essential requirement for attracting those offences ``` ``` is the commission of forgery as defined under Section ``` ``` 463 IPC. I have considered the said contention as ``` ``` well. The offence of ‘forgery’ is defined under Section 463 of IPC which reads as follows: ``` “463. Forgery. —Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.” ``` One of the basic ingredients for attracting the ``` ``` offence of forgery is “making a false document” which ``` ``` is defined under section 464 of IPC, which reads as ``` ``` follows: ``` “464. Making a false document.- A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record- First.- Who dishonestly or fraudulently- (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; - (c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature.” ``` 12.The contention of the learned Senior Counsel ``` ``` for the petitioners in Crl.M.C. is that, to attract ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 13 ``` the said offences, mere creation of a document itself ``` ``` is not sufficient, but it must have been done ``` ``` dishonestly and fraudulently with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part ``` ``` of the document, electronic record or electronic ``` ``` signature was made, signed, sealed executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a ``` ``` person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it ``` ``` was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed. ``` ``` According to the learned Senior Counsel, unless there ``` ``` is impersonation while creating the document, the ``` ``` offence would not be made out. To be precise, ``` ``` according to him, even if a person executes an ``` ``` incorrect document by revealing his proper identity and without resorting to the status or authority of a ``` ``` third person, the offence of forgery would not be ``` ``` attracted. The learned counsel also places reliance ``` ``` upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme ``` ``` Court inMohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another [(2009)8 SCC 751]. ``` ``` 13.I have carefully gone through the ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 14 ``` observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ``` ``` in the said decision. It was observed by the Hon’ble ``` ``` Supreme Court in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 as follows: ``` “10. Section 467 (insofar as it is relevant to this case) provides that whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 471, relevant to our purpose, provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. 11. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. The term “forgery” used in these two sections is defined in Section 463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 12. Section 464 defining “making a false document” is extracted below: “464. Making a false document.—A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record— First.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently— (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.—Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 15 of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. Explanation 1.—A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery. Explanation 2.—The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery. [Note.— The words ‘digital signature’ wherever they occur were substituted by the words ‘electronic signature’ by Amendment Act 10 of 2009.]” ``` 14.However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is ``` ``` that the said decision was rendered in a case where ``` ``` the accused executed a sale deed without any ``` ``` authority and it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme ``` ``` Court that, a person is said to have created false ``` ``` document only if he had created the said document ``` ``` claiming to be someone else or authorized by some one ``` ``` else. However, the factual circumstances existing in ``` ``` this case are completely different. Here, the accused ``` ``` persons have allegedly created the document which is the minutes of the meeting signed by the shareholders of the Company to the effect that, a meeting was indeed convened on a particular day at a particular time and at a particular place, whereas, no such meeting was ever convened, as per the prosecution ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 16 ``` case. According to the prosecution, it is a case ``` ``` where the accused persons have created a document in respect of a meeting which was never convened. Therefore, even if the signatories named in the minutes have actually put their signature therein, the question to be considered is whether those signatures were affixed by the said persons after attending a meeting claimed to have been conducted on that particular day, particular date and particular place. If it is shown that, no such meeting was convened, then the affixture of the signature of the persons, even if it was actually made by them, cannot be treated as signatures affixed by them in their capacity as the participants of the meeting so convened. Therefore, it could be treated as an instance where a document was falsely made with an intention to cause to be believed that the same was made by the authority of persons in their capacity as participants of the said meeting, with the knowledge that, the said persons had no occasion to participate ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 17 ``` in such a meeting since the meeting was never ``` ``` convened. Therefore, it is a case in which the ``` ``` offence may be attracted if it is shown that the meeting, as claimed by the accused persons, was never ``` ``` convened. In this case, as mentioned above, the statements of CW3 and CW4 are to the effect that no ``` ``` such meeting was convened. Therefore, the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the accused ``` ``` persons cannot be considered at this stage as it is a ``` ``` question of fact as to whether the meeting was convened or not. Therefore, I do not find any ``` ``` justifiable reasons to invoke the jurisdiction under ``` ``` Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid Crime and Calendar case as the contentions raised are matters which are to be decided based on evidence during the course of the trial. ``` ``` 15. The next aspect relates to the prayer sought bythedefactocomplainant/petitionerin WP(C)No.13746/2020. The defacto complainant contends that the investigation conducted by the 5th respondent in the writ petition was improper and ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 18 ``` ineffective. The offences mentioned above were ``` ``` deleted without conducting any proper investigation, and therefore, he approached this Court with the following reliefs: ``` - _`(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ,`_ ``` order or direction entrusting the further investigation in Crime No.166/2019 of Palarivattom ``` ``` Police Station to the Crime Branch wing of the Kerala Police. ``` - _`(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other`_ ``` writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent or to any officer under him not below the rank of Dy.S.P. to conduct a further ``` ``` investigation in Crime No.166/2019 of Palarivattom Police Station. ``` ``` (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other ``` ``` writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice. ``` `16. In response to the averments in the writ` ``` petition, a statement was submitted on behalf of the ``` ``` 5th respondent in the writ petition. In the ``` ## _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 &`_ _`WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 19 ``` statement, they referred to the various steps the 5th ``` ``` respondent had taken as part of the investigation. It was pointed out that a proper investigation was ``` ``` conducted, and the conclusions arrived were based on ``` ``` thematerialstheycollectedduringsuch investigation. It was pointed out that the ``` ``` investigation has been completed, and a final report has already been submitted, which is now pending trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate ``` ``` Court-IX, Eranakulam, as C.C No.316/2019; therefore, ``` ``` the 5th respondent in the writ petition sought ``` ``` dismissal of the writ petition. ``` ``` 17. The specific contention put forward by the ``` ``` learned counsel for the defacto complainant is that the investigation conducted by the 5th respondent was ``` ``` in a biased manner right from the inception. One of the crucial aspects pointed out by the defacto complainant is that, even though the 5th respondent arrived at the finding that the forgery of the minutes of the Annual General Body Meeting, was committed, the copy of such minutes is not seen ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 20 ``` produced along with the final report. According to ``` ``` the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, this will give an undue advantage to the accused in raising their defence and thereby cause prejudice to the prosecution. ``` ``` 18. Apart from the above, it is also pointed out that, in Ext. P1 private complaint, the defacto complainant cited five witnesses who had direct knowledge of the transactions in his complaint. Out of the said witnesses, only one person was included in the list of witnesses, and it is the specific case of the defacto complainant that the statements of the other witnesses were never recorded. According to the petitioner, they were crucial witnesses who could provide more details about the acts committed by the accused. Another contention of the learned counsel for the defacto complainant is that even though he was persuaded to make such an investment based on an offer made by the accused to make him Director, the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 468 were deleted. In the statement submitted by the 5th ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 21 ``` respondent in the writ petition, it is stated that ``` ``` there was no fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the accused, prompting the defacto complainant to deliver any property to make any ``` ``` investments. However, this explanation was made by ``` ``` the 5th respondent even though, as per the final report, it was mentioned there was a misappropriation of Rs 18,00,000/- lakhs collected from the defacto complainant through pledging of the Gold Loan. ``` ``` 19. Thus, when all these aspects are taken into consideration, it can be seen that the investigation conducted in this case by the 5th respondent in the writ petition was not proper, and the final report appears to be incomplete. This is mainly because, even though one of the allegations is the creation of the fake minutes of an Annual General Body Meeting claimed to have been convened on a particular date, the said document is not recovered and produced along with the final report. The defacto complainant has a specific contention that he produced, along with the complaint, all the documents relating to the ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 22 ``` investment he made, but nothing is seen referred to ``` ``` in the final report about the said documents. ``` ``` Moreover, the statements of some of the witnesses cited in the complaint were also not recorded by the police. ``` ``` 20. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that, this is a matter that must be subjected to further investigation. As the investigation already conducted by the 5th respondent in the writ petition is found to be inadequate, I deem it appropriate to allow the prayer sought by the defacto complainant to entrust further investigation to another agency. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent in the writ petition, to take over the further investigation in Crime No.166/2019 of Palarivattom Police Station and take steps to conduct a further investigation effectively, by complying with the stipulations under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. The Crl.MC filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed. ``` ``` Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` ``` pkk ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 23 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13746/2020` ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-IX,ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT LAID BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.166/2019 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION. ``` _`CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 24 ``` APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3060/2020 ``` ## `PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES` |`ANNEXURE`|`1`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED`| |---|---|---| |||`30.5.2019 IN C.C.NO.316 OF 2019 ON THE FILE`| |||`OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-`| |||`IX, ERNAKULAM.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 5.8.2016 OF`| |||`THE COMPANY, VIZ., WORLDON HD TV PRIVATE`| |||`LIMITED.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE`| |||`FIRST ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE COMPANY`| |||`HELD ON 30.12.2017.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`3(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE AGM`| |||`COMMUNICATED BY THE COMPANY SECRETARY TO THE`| |||`IST PETITIONER DATED 30.12.2017.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE AGM HELD IN`| |||`THE BUILDING AT JOMER SYMPHONY TOWER, VYTTILA`| |||`DATED 30.12.2017.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`4(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION DATED 30.12.2017`| |||`GRANTED BY THE LANDLORD OF THE BUILDER.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.9.2017`| |||`FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE`| |||`PONNANI POLICE.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION`| |||`DATED 9.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF`| |||`COMPANIES.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.7.2018`| |||`FILED BY TWO DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY WORLDON`| |||`HD TV CHANNEL PVT. LTD VIZ., REGHUNATHAN P.`| |||`AND P.V.AYOOB AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT`| |||`BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,`| |||`MALAPPURAM.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.10.2018`| |||`FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE WIFE OF`| |||`THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE C.I. OF POLICE,`| |||`PONNANI.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`8(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION REGISTERED AS`| |||`NO.130712/2018 DATED 8.10.2018 FILED BY THE`| |||`PETITIONER AGAINST THE WIFE OF THE 2ND`| |||`RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PONNANI POLICE STATION.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.15/PTN/DCRB/18/EC`| |||`DATED 9.11.2018 OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER`| |||`OF POLICE, DCRB, KOCHI CITY TO THE TWO`| |||`DIRECTORS OF THE WORLDON HD TV CHANNEL PVT.`| |||`LTD. VIZ., REGHUNATHAN P AND P.V.AYOOB.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 9.5.2019`| |||`ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE`|`11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.6.2019`| ``` CRL.MC No.3060/2020 & ``` _`WP(C) No.13746/2020`_ 25 ``` BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALARIVATTOM AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 11(A)TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.665/P1/PTN/19/P- 12 DATED 8.6.2019. ANNEXURE 12TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.10.2019 FILED BY BIBIN BABY, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, DIGITAL MALAYALI.COM BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE, KOTTAYAM. ANNEXURE 12(A)TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.70663/2019/K DATED 11.10.2019. ANNEXURE 13TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO.479197 DATED 12.5.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 14TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMPANY DATED 11.1.2017. ```