INDO ASIAN NEWS CHANNEL PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. STATE OF KERALA AND SMT. LALI JOSEPH

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **CRIME NO.235/2016 OF Thodupuzha Police Station , Idukki** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 INDO ASIAN NEWS CHANNEL PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT REPORTER STUDIO COMPLEX, HMT COLONY, KALAMSSERRY,KOCHI-683 503, KERALA** - **2 MR. M.V.NIKESH KUMAR AGED 43 YEARS S/O. M.V.RAGHAVAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDO-ASIAN NEWS CHANNEL PVT.LTD., REPORTER STUDIO COMPLEX, HMT COLONY, KALAMSSERY, KOCHI-683 503,PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT MELETH VEEDU, BURNASSERI POST, KANNUR670 013, NOW RESIDING AT PAZHAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, HMT COLONY, KALAMSSERY, KOCHI-683 503** - **3 MRS.RANI VARGHESE AGED 46 YEARS W/O. M.V. NIKESH KUMAR, PAZHAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, HMT COLONY, KALAMSSERY, KOCHI-683 503** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 031 2 SMT. LALI JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS KOYTHANATH HOUSE, KARIMANNUR.P., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,NOE RESIDING AT S.F.S.CALTON,FLAT NO.11-B, KAWADIYAR .P.O., AMBALAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003** **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **2** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.VINAY R2 BY ADV. SRI.D.FEROZE** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **3** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ## **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C. No.457 of 2019** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 25[th] day of November, 2020 ## **O R D E R** The prayer in the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C. filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. is as follows : _“....to call for the records relating to final report/charge sheet No.1248/2018 in Crime No.235/2016 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha and quash the same and to allow the above Criminal Miscellaneous case.”_ 2. Heard Sri.Joseph Kodianthara, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri.Sharad Joseph Kodianthara , learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused, Sri.Santhosh Peter, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1-State of Kerala and Sri.S.Rajeev, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.2 (lady defacto complainant). 3. The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively among the three accused in the instant impugned Annexure-2 FIR in crime No.235/2016 of Thodupuzha Police Station which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs. 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC pursuant to Annexure-A1 petition dated 11.2.2016 submitted by the 2[nd] respondent-lady defacto complainant before the Superintendent of Police, Idukki district. The police after investigation has **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **4** filed the impugned Annexure-A3 final report/charge sheet in the impugned Annexure-A2 crime No.235/2016 of Thodupuzha Police Station which has now led to the pendency of calendar case CC No.157/2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, Idukki district for the offences punishable under Secs. 120B, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC in which the three petitioners herein have been arrayed as the three accused persons therein. 4. It appears that the case of the 2[nd] respondent is that the petitioners herein had clearly and unequivocally promised the 2[nd] respondent that in the event of 2[nd] respondent investing about Rupees 10 crores in the project of the 5[th] petitioner company for the establishment of a television news channel, then the petitioners would allot 1.5 lakh equity shares to her and that believing the said promise and the assurance made by the petitioners, the 2[nd] respondent had invested money to the tune of Rs. 10 crores in the abovesaid project. But thereafter, the petitioners have consistently refused to allot 1.5 lakh equity shares to the 2[nd] respondent, but instead of that has only allotted her 75,000 preference shares and 75,000 equity shares and that the petitioners have refused the repeated pleas of the 2[nd] respondent to fulfil their initial promise inasmuch as the 2[nd] respondent has fulfilled her part of the obligation in having invested such huge money and that the abovesaid repeated conduct of the petitioners in refusing to allot her 1.5 lakh equity shares, would clearly show that the **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **5** petitioners had always the dishonest intention to unlawfully deprive of her money right from the commencement of the transaction between the parties and that therefore, the petitioners have committed the offence of cheating as per Sec.420 of the IPC. 5. Further that, the petitioners have committed other offences as per Secs. 465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC inasmuch as they have forged the documents to show as if the petitioners have voluntarily accepted the allotment of the preference shares and the equity shares as claimed by the petitioners etc. One of the grounds urged by the petitioners for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings which has now resulted in the pendency of calendar case on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha is that the none other than the 2[nd] respondent herself as on 16.8.2018 filed Annexure-A7 company petition before the National Companies Law Tribunal, Chennai bench under Sec.59 of the Companies Act, in which the petitioners herein have been arrayed as the respondents therein on similar set of allegations and has sought the following among other reliefs thereby. _(3) “To direct the respondents to allot 75,000 equity shares of Rs.100/- each to the petitioner as against the allotment of 75,000 6% non-cumulative nonconvertible preference shares allotted to the petitioner on 7.9.2010. (4) To set aside the transfer of 75,000 equity shares from the petitioner to the 2[nd] respondent that were illegally transferred on 4.4.2011 and consequently direct the rectification of register of members so as to delete the 75,000 shares from the folio of the 2[nd] respondent and restore the 75,000 shares in the folio of the petitioner.”_ 6. The petitioners would contend that since the 2[nd] respondent **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **6** herself has availed the remedy under the Companies Act, 2013 and since the present criminal proceedings is mainly with respect to the allotment of the legality of action done by the petitioners in allotment of preferential shares and equity shares etc. the verdict of the Tribunal, in Annexure-7 company petition will have a direct and intimate nexus with the issues to be decided by the criminal court in the impugned Annexure-3 criminal proceedings. Hence, petitioners would urge that taking note of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in decisions as in _**CIT, Mumbai v.Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal and anr**_ . [(2001) 3 SCC 459] etc. and the other decisions of the Apex Court referred to therein. This Court may order that further proceedings now on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha in calendar case, CC No. 157/2018. 7. The aforecited judgment of the Apex Court in _**Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal’s**_ case (supra) [(2001) 1 SCC 459] is a short judgment and it will be profitable to refer to the said judgment which reads as follows : _“Twelve cases were lodged against the respondents under the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] before the Metropolitan Magistrate for offences punishable under the Act. In relation to the assessments arising under the Act, appeals had been preferred either before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal]. On the basis that the appeals were pending the respondents filed applications for stay of the proceedings arising before the criminal court. Several decisions were cited before the court to support the contention that the decision of the appellate authorities in the income tax proceedings would be relevant to the criminal prosecution instituted against the respondents. The learned Magistrate, after examining the position in law as to whether the findings of the appellate authorities are relevant for the purpose of the criminal proceedings and to avoid conflicting decisions of the criminal court and the appellate authorities, felt that it would be appropriate to grant an interim order of the following nature: ORDER_ **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **7** _The work of recording evidence shall proceed. However, passing of order about framing of charge, discharge of the accused or acquittal of the accused shall be stayed during pendency of the appeals by the accused before the Income Tax Appellate Authorities. These orders will be passed after the appeals filed by the accused before the Income Tax Authorities are finally decided._ _2. Against that order, revision petitions were filed before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court did not interfere with the order made by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the same. Thereupon, the matter was carried further to the High Court and the High Court, while entertaining a writ petition noticing several decisions of that High Court and of this Court, issued rule in the matter and granted an interim order staying the proceedings in the criminal cases filed before the learned Magistrate. It is against this order that these special leave petitions have been filed._ _3. The prosecution in criminal law and proceedings arising under the Act are undoubtedly independent proceedings and, therefore, there is no impediment in law for the criminal proceedings to proceed even during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act. However, a wholesome rule will have to be adopted in matters of this nature where courts have taken the view that when the conclusions arrived at by the appellate authorities have a relevance and bearing upon the conclusions to be reached in the case necessarily one authority will have to await the outcome of the other authority._ _4. This Court in G.L.Didwania & Anr. vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr., 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 724, dealt with the similar situation where there is a prosecution under the Act for making a false statement that the assessee had intentionally concealed his income and the Tribunal ultimately set aside the assessment holding that there is no material to hold that such income belong to the assessee and the petition was filed before the Magistrate to drop the criminal proceedings and thereafter an application was filed before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash those criminal proceedings. This Court held that the whole question is whether the appellant made a false statement regarding the income which according to the assessing authority has escaped assessment and this issue was dependent on the conclusion reached by the appellate Tribunal and hence the prosecution could not be sustained. In Uttam Chand & Ors. vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar, 1982 (2) SCC 543, this Court held that in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal on appraisal of the entire material on the record that the firm was a genuine firm and the assessee could not be prosecuted for filing false returns and, therefore, quashed the prosecution. In P.Jayappan vs. S.K.Perumal, First IncomeTax Officer, Tuticorin, 1984 Supp. SCC 437, this Court observed that the pendency of the reassessment proceedings under the Act cannot act as a bar to the institution of the criminal proceedings and postponement or adjournment of a proceedings for unduly long period on the ground that another proceedings having a bearing on the decision was not proper._ _5. In the present case, there is no claim of quashing of the proceedings. When ultimately the result to come out of the proceedings before the appellate authorities have a definite bearing on the cases alleged against the respondents, we find that the High Court is justified in granting the interim order it did and we do not think that such an interim order calls for interference at our hands. The learned counsel on either side relied on several decisions, but in the view we have taken it is unnecessary to refer to those decisions._ _6. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.”_ **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **8** 8. Per contra, Sri.Santhosh Peter, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1-State of Kerala and Sri.S.Rajeev, learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent-lady defacto complainant would point out that the petitioners have already invited an adverse order from this Court inasmuch as the petitioners had on the previous occasions filed AnnexureA5 Crl.M.C. No.1890/2016 before this Court seeking for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings at the FIS stage in crime No.235/2016 of Thodupuzha Police Station (Annexure-A2 herein). This Court has anxiously considered the rival submissions in that petition and had rendered Annexure-A5 final order dated 21.12.2016 in Crl.M.C. No.1890/2016 whereby the plea of the petitioner for interdiction of the impugned criminal proceedings was refused by this Court mainly on the ground that after exhaustive consideration of the various factual aspects, it was found by this Court that the case on hand essentially depends largely on disputed question of facts which can be desirable only on the basis of evidence through meticulous judicial evaluation and that it cannot be said that the complaint of the 2[nd] respondent is bereft of any basis and accordingly, the abovesaid Crl.M.C. was dismissed by this Court. However, specific liberty was given to the petitioner that he will be entitled to raise all his contentions before the court below and may seek discharge at the appellate stage, if the next stage has not crossed thereby, that is petitioner has been given liberty to seek the benefit of a discharge by filing appropriate **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **9** application before the learned Magistrate in case charges have not been framed by the said court, at the time of filing of the discharge application. 9. Further that, Annexure-A5 final order dated 21.12.2016 in Crl.MC. No.1890/2016 was challenged by the petitioners herein by filing SLP Criminal No. 2898/2017 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court as per Annexure-A6 order dated 25.4.2018 has dismissed SLP (Criminal) No.2898/2017 thereby confirming the correctness of Annexure-A5 order of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.1890/2016. However, the Apex Court has observed in Annexure-A6 order that the findings and the observations made by this Court in Annexure-A5 final order will not come in any manner in the way of the petitioners, who are considering the matter on merits by the trial court etc. It will be pertinent to refer to Annexure-A6 order dated 25.4.2018 rendered by the Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) No.2898/2017 which reads as follows : _“Heard learned counsel for the parties at length._ _The special leave petition is dismissed._ _However, any findings/observations made by the High Court does not come in the way of the petitioners, for considering the matter on merits by the trial court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”_ 10. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent-State and the learned advocate appearing for the 2[nd] respondent-defacto complainant would urge that though Annexure-A5 order rendered by this Court was at the FIS stage, this Court has **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **10** specifically held that even after the filing of the final report, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the learned Magistrate by filing appropriate application seeking the prayer for discharge, provided the charges have not been framed by this Court and therefore, the fact that Annexure-A5 order was rendered by this Court on 21.12.2016 before the submission of the impugned Annexure-A3 final report/charge sheet on 29.9.2018, will not make any material difference etc. 11. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the abovesaid contentions urged by the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1[st] respondent-State and the learned advocate appearing for the 2[nd] respondent – defacto complainant would commend acceptance at the hands of this Court. True, that Annexure-A5 final order was rendered by this Court in Crl.M.C. No. 1890/2016 on 21.12.2016 at a stage, when the case was only at the stage of FIR and at a time, prior to the submission of the impugned Annexure-A3 final report/charge sheet filed only on 29.9.2018. But, however, this Court specifically found and held that the case on hand involves various disputes of facts which would involve careful appreciation of evidence through meticulous judicial evaluation. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioners would be to file appropriate discharge application before the learned Magistrate at the appellate stage ie., hence, in other words, this Court has specifically granted liberty to the petitioner to raise these issues after taking cognizance of the case by the learned **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **11** Magistrate consequent to the filing of the final report/charge sheet and before framing of the charges. The said considered stand taken by this Court in Annexure-A5 order, which has not been interfered by the Apex Court in Annexure-A6 order, will certainly dissuade this Court from considering the merits of the rival contentions at this stage. 12. This Court is now informed by the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha that after taking cognizance, the case has been numbered as calendar case, CC No. 1248/2018 and that charges have not been framed by the said court in the said case so far. If that be so, nothing precludes the petitioner from availing statutory remedy of discharge, for which liberty has already given by this Court in Annexure-A5 order. Therefore, it will not be right and proper for this Court to entertain this Crl.M.C. for quashment under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. at this stage, when particularly the petitioner has already invited a judicial verdict of this Court as per Annexure-A5 and the petitioner has not invoked the said statutory remedy of discharge. That apart, as already held by this Court the case on hand would involve various disputed questions of fact and therefore, would require proper appreciation of evidence or materials through judicial evaluation. That process of judicial evaluation could be better and effectively done through the consideration of discharge application by the trial court. Any party concerned, who is aggrieved by the decision taken by the learned Magistrate after consideration and disposal **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **12** of the discharge application can challenge such order in the manner known to law by filing appropriate petition before this Court. 13. After proper judicial evaluation has been rendered by the trial court on such issues, then thereafter, in case any party has any legally justiciable grievances thereto, then those aspects would be properly agitated in appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law. At this stage, it will be hazardous to this Court to enter into the terrain of the disputed questions of fact and to judicially evaluate it as the court of first instance since this Court is essentially vested only with the powers of supervision and superintendence while discharging judicial functions under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, on that ground also it may not be right and proper for this Court to entertain this petition on merits. 14. However, after hearing both sides, it is seen that the petitioners have made out a strong case and strongly urge that the final verdict of the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench in the matter in AnnexureA7 company petition will have a direct and intimate nexus with the issues to be determined by the learned Magistrate. This Court need not get into those aspects. There appears to be certain mistakes in the averments in this petition inasmuch as Annexure-A7 company petition is stated to have the serial No. 3074 of 2018 on the file of the National Companies Law Tribunal, Chennai, which is stated to have now been transferred to NCLT, Kochi bench. This Court had requested the Registry of this Court to get the **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **13** requisite information from the Registry of National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi bench. It is now apprised to this Court by a letter dated 18.11.2020 submitted by the Deputy Registrar, NCLT, Kochi bench addressed to the Registry of this Court that the company petition CP No.169/2019 was filed before the NCLT, Chennai bench by Smt.Laly Joseph (R2 herein) under Secs. 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 against Indo-Asian news channel (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. and the said company petition 169/2019 on the file of the NCLT, Chennai bench has been transferred to the NCLT, Kochi bench and the latter bench has renumbered the case as TCP/20/KOB/2019 and the case is now posted for hearing on 19.11.2020 as per the previous order rendered on 7.9.2020 etc. 15. Therefore, this Court need not now examine the issue as to whether the matters in relation to Annexure-A7 company petition to be decided by the NCLT has direct and intimate nexus and connection in the issues to be determined by the criminal court as urged by the petitioners herein. In the discharge application, it will be open to the petitioners herein to _inter alia_ urge among other grounds as to how the matters in relation to the final verdict in Annexure-A7 company petition to be rendered by the Company Law Tribunal, Kochi bench are relevant and germane for deciding the issues in the impugned criminal proceedings. 16. It will be open to the 2[nd] respondent-defacto complainant and the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala to give their written submissions in the **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **14** matter on the above discharge application to be filed by the petitioners and it is open to them to raise all their contentions, including the one to deal with the abovesaid contention of the petitioners based on Annexure-A7 company petition. In the said discharge application, the learned Magistrate may consider as to whether the matters to be decided in the final verdict of the NCLT, Kochi bench in Annexure-A7 company petition are relevant and germane for the issues to be decided in the discharge application. 17. It is made clear that after meticulous consideration of that preliminary issue, it will be open to the learned Magistrate to decide as to whether the further consideration in the discharge application may have to await till the final verdict is to be rendered by the NCLT, Kochi on Annexure-A7 company petition, if the said tribunal has not rendered its final decision in the said matter by then. 18. The preliminary order on that preliminary issue may be duly rendered by the learned Magistrate well before the next posting date viz. 31.5.2021. In this connection, the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha has informed the Registry of this Court that the next posting date of the case in CC No.157/2018 is 31.5.2021. 19. Sri.Joseph Kodianthara, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri.Sharad Joseph Kodianthara appearing for the petitioners would submit on the basis of instructions of the parties that the petitioners would immediately move the requisite application for discharge before the Chief **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **15** Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, who is dealing with CC No.157/2018 without much delay. 20. On being queried as to whether the 2[nd] respondent herein has taken any steps seeking any expeditious hearing and disposal of the main matter in Annexure-A7 TCP/20/KOB/2019 now on the file of the NCLT, Kochi bench. Sri.S.Rajeev, learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent would submit that the 2[nd] respondent will immediately move requisite application before the NCLT, Kochi bench for the expeditious hearing and disposal of the said company petition without any further delay, if the same has not so far been done. 21. If the petitioners are taking the stand that the matter in relation to the final disposal of the said company petition now on the file of the NCLT, Kochi bench is really relevant and germane for the present impugned criminal proceedings, then it is for them also to take steps to ensure the expeditious hearing and disposal of the said company petition by the tribunal concerned. 22. Both sides may also apprise the Chief Judicial Magistrate about the stage of the company petition now pending on the file of the NCLT, Kochi bench. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed : _1) In view of the findings and orders made by this Court already in Annexure-A5 final order dated 21.12.2016 in Crl.M.C._ **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **16** _No.1890/2016, it will not be right and proper for this Court to consider the present Crl.M.C. on merits at this stage and therefore, the petitioner will have to be relegated to seek the remedy of discharge before the learned Magistrate as already ordered in Annexure – A5 order._ _2) The petitioners may file requisite application for discharge before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, who is dealing with CC No.157/2018 without any further delay along with the certified copy of this judgment. It will be open to the petitioners to give their detailed written submissions in the matter and also to urge various grounds including the abovesaid ground regarding as to how the matters in relation to the above company petition are germane and relevant for the issues to be decided in the impugned criminal proceedings._ _3) The investigating agency as well as the 2[nd] respondent-defacto complainant will also be at liberty to give their written submissions in the matter._ 23. The petitioners will ensure that a copy of the discharge application so filed is given in advance to both the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the learned Magistrate as well as to the learned counsel appearing for R2 in this proceedings, to obviate any further delay. 24. It will be open to the investigating agency/prosecution agency as well as the 2[nd] respondent-defacto complainant to urge their ground by giving written submissions in the matter. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha will consider the said discharge application and may decide as a preliminary issue as to whether the matters in relation to **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **17** the final verdict in the above company petition now pending on the file of the NCLT, Kochi bench are germane and relevant for discharging the issues in the discharge application. This will be duly done by the learned Magistrate after hearing all the parties concerned as aforestated and a preliminary order in relation to the resolution in that preliminary issue will be rendered and if the learned Magistrate is of the considered opinion that the said company petition aspects are germane and relevant for the discharge application, the learned Magistrate will also be at liberty to take a decision so as to defer the further consideration of the discharge application on merits till the final disposal of the above company petition by the NCLT, Kochi bench if the said tribunal has not rendered its final verdict in the said company petition by then. 25. The considered order on the said preliminary issue may be duly rendered by the learned Magistrate without much delay, preferably before 31.5.2021, which is the next posting date. If on the other hand, the final verdict of the NCLT, Kochi bench in the above company petition is available before the learned Magistrate, then the learned Magistrate need not take any decision as to whether or not the further consideration of the discharge application is to be deferred and then may proceed to consider the merits of all the contentions and then pass appropriate orders on the plea for discharge in accordance with law. In case, any of the parties concerned have any legally justiciable grievances to the orders to be **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **18** rendered by the learned Magistrate as aforestated, then they will be at liberty to work out their remedies, strictly in accordance with law. 26. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the controversy in any manner and none of the findings and observations made by this Court need be considered as an expression of opinion on the part of this Court regarding the merits of the controversy, which now would fall within the domain and province of the trial court concerned as aforestated. Registry will forward a copy of this order to the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi bench, who is dealing with TCP/20/KOB/2019 as well as to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, who is dealing with CC No.157/2018 for necessary information. Secretary of the office of the Advocate General will ensure that a copy of this order is duly furnished to the investigating officer in this case as well as to the learned Prosecutor, who is appearing before the CJM’s Court, Thodupuzha for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C. will stand disposed of. ## **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** SKS **Crl.MC.No.457 OF 2019(F)** **19** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE-A1**|**TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 02/02/2016**| |---|---| ||**FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT**| ||**BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI**| |**ANNEXURE-A2**|**TRUE COPY OF F.I.R INC RIME NO.0235/2016 OF**| ||**THE THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION**| |**ANNEXURE-A3**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE**| ||**SHEET NO.1248/2018 IN CRIME NO.235/2016 ON**| ||**THE FILED OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE**| ||**COURT, THODUPUZHA**| |**ANNEXURE-A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF**| ||**INCORPORATION DATED 26.07.2010 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA &**| ||**LAKSHASWEEP**| |**ANNEXURE-A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2016**| ||**PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL.MC.**| ||**NO.1890/2016**| |**ANNEXURE-A6**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.04.2018 PASSED**| ||**BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP**| ||**(CRIMINAL) NO.2898/2017 FILED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.,S 1 TO 3**| |**ANNEXURE-A7**|**TRUE COPY OF COMPANY PETITION**| ||**SR.NO.3074/2018 BEFORE THE NATIONAL**| ||**COMPANIES LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI, FILED BY**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT**|