## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN**
**MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2014/23RD ASHADHA, 1936**
**Crl.MC.No. 2946 of 2013 () ---------------------------**
## **CRIME NO. 403/2012 OF BADIADUKKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD**
## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:-:**
## **----------------------------**
**D.K.NAGARAJU, S/O.KRISHNE GOWDA, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAKONDAGOLA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, D.N.C. CHICKEN CENTRE NEXT TO RBN HARD WARES, JAYANAGAR, BALGAME ROAD HASSAN, KARNATAKA.**
**BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER**
## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:-:**
**----------------------------**
**1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I OF POLICE BADIADKA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.**
***ADDL.R2.ABDULLA KUNHI, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABBAS, RESIDING AT CHEDIKUNDU, KUNDANKUZHI POST, BEDADUKKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.**
*** (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER ORDER DAETD 6.11.2013 IN Crl.M.A.NO.8805/13 IN Crl.M.C.No.2946/13)**
**R(ADDL.R2) BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-07-2014, ALONG WITH CRMC. 2947/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**Crl.MC.No. 2946 of 2013 ()**
**---------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**
**-------------------------**
**ANNEXURE I. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLANT.**
**ANNEXURE II. TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.403 OF 2012 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION.**
**ANNEXURE III. TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IN KANNADA ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.**
**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS**
**------------------------**
**NIL**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**P.A. TO JUDGE**
**ami/**
## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.**
**------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos.2946 and 2947 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of July, 2014.**
## **O R D E R**
The above two M.Cs. are filed challenging Crime nos.403/12 and 404/12 respectively of Badiadka Police Station, which were registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC. Crime No.403/12 of Badiadka Police Station was registered on receiving a complaint filed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., by the additional 2[nd] respondent herein, before the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kasaragod, whereas Crime No.404/12 was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the additional 2[nd] respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2947/13, before the very same court. Now the case of the petitioner in both the above M.Cs. is that no offence either under section 406 or 420 of IPC is attracted against him and it is also contended that, neither the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kasaragod, nor Badiadka Police Station has
**Crl.M.C.Nos.2946 and 2947 of 2013**
2
jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint and to register a crime. Therefore, it is prayed to quash all further proceedings in the above crimes.
2. Heard Adv.Sri.K.N.Venugopala Panicker, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Sri.T.Madhu, the learned counsel for the additional 2[nd] respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2946 of 2013 and Adv.Sri.Rajesh Vijayan, the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. In both the cases, the factual scenario is same, except the registration numbers of the vehicles involved in each case and the name of the complainants. Now, the prosecution allegation is that, the complainants are the registered owners of the vehicles mentioned in each complaints and the petitioner, who is the accused in the above crimes, was used to hire the vehicles of the complainants for transporting poultry from Hassan in Karnataka to Kerala and as per the terms of the contract, the complainants entrusted the dominion of the vehicles
**Crl.M.C.Nos.2946 and 2947 of 2013**
3
with the petitioner for the transaction on 20.7.2012 as well as on 21.7.2012 and sent the vehicles with the driver of the complainants and accordingly on the same day, the vehicles reached at 6 p.m. at Karnataka, towards Hassan. It is also the case of the complainants that, for poultry transportation, the complainants are having iron boxes which are required for safe transportation of chicks. According to the complainants, the boxes fetch a value of more than Rs.2,500/- per box and the trucks cost more than Rs.8 lakhs and the boxes in each vehicle cost more than Rs.1,50,000/-. It is the further case of the complainants that they had entrusted the trucks and boxes with the accused in good faith and the accused have the dominion over the valuable properties of the complainants. According to the complainants, the accused has dishonestly misappropriated and converted the truck and boxes to his own use, in breach of the expressed and implied contract touching the discharge of
**Crl.M.C.Nos.2946 and 2947 of 2013**
4
such trust and wilfully made the complainants to suffer any loss and thereby the accused has committed criminal breach of trust. With the above allegation, the complainant approached the court below by filing separate complaints and those complaints were sent under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Badiadka Police Station and thus the above crimes were registered against the very same petitioner/accused for the said offences. It is the above crimes and further proceedings sought to be quashed under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in both the M.Cs. have vehemently submitted that, both the trial court as well as the Badiadka Police Station have no jurisdiction to entertain such complaints or to register such crimes, since no transaction was taken place within the jurisdiction of the court below. It is specifically stated in ground 'E' of the M.C. that, the petitioner/accused is a dealer in chicken at Hassan Karnataka and he never even
**Crl.M.C.Nos.2946 and 2947 of 2013**
5
came to the place of the de facto complainant and never entered into any transaction with him at Badiadka as stated in the complaint and the complainant has not produced any evidence for such transaction to attract the jurisdiction of the court below. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle was retained by the petitioner for the purpose of getting the amount, which is due to him, from one Achu. Thus, it can be seen that the petitioner denies the factual allegation raised against him and he gives a different version about the transaction. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2946/13 submitted on the strength of the decision of the Honourable Apex court reported in **Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Guajarat and others (2010 KHC 77)** that, the court below is justified in forwarding the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Badiadka Police Station, as it has got the right to investigate the crime. The learned
**Crl.M.C.Nos.2946 and 2947 of 2013**
6
Public Prosecutor submitted that as this Court has stayed the further proceedings, the police could not recover the vehicles involved in the case. It is also the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that, as the Police has already registered crimes on the basis of the complaints received under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., it is for the petitioner to co-operate with the investigation.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the additional 2[nd] respondent and also the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. On a reading of the complaints, which are produced along with the M.Cs., it appears to me that, part of the transaction was taken place in the state of Kerala, that too within the territorial jurisdiction of the Badiadka Police Station, coming under the jurisdiction of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kasaragod. In the light of the decision cited supra, the contentions
**Crl.M.C.Nos.2946 and 2947 of 2013**
7
raised by the petitioner on the question of jurisdiction, according to me, is untenable. The allegations raised in the complaints against the petitioner, even if it is not controverted, according to me, are sufficient to constitute necessary ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the petitioner/accused. Whether such factual imputations raised against the petitioner are correct or not, can be ascertained only through a detail investigation to be undertaken by the Badiadka Police Station in the above two crimes. At this stage, this Court will not be justified in going into the merits of the case, particularly with respect to the allegations raised by the complainants against the petitioner and also the contra arguments, and arrive into a conclusion, especially when the crimes registered on the basis of the complaints are in the infant stage. Therefore, according to me, it is for the petitioner to co-operate with the investigation and to raise his contentions before appropriate forum at appropriate
8
## **Crl.M.C.Nos.2946 and 2947 of 2013**
stage either for a discharge or for an acquittal. In the above circumstances, I find no merit in these petitions and accordingly the same are dismissed.
Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.**
ami/
//True copy//
P.A. to Judge
