Ravikrishnan C v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/18TH KARTHIKA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 7626 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** **CC 648/2016 of C.J.M.,THALASSERY CRIME NO. 321/2011 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION , KANNUR** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED 20: ------------------------** **RAVIKRISHNAN .C AGED 43 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, CHEERATH HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL POST, KANNUR-670 011.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA SRI.JOHN THITHEEMOS SMT.DIVYA S KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **--------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031.** ## **R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R.RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7626 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.321/2011 OF THE PERINGOME POLICE STATION IN KANNUR DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 9.4.2003. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **Crl.M.C. No.7626 of 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of November, 2016 ## **O R D E R** ## **~~~~~~~~** - 1.The petitioner is arrayed as the 20[th] accused in C.C.No.648 of 2016 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. The aforesaid case has originated from Crime No.321 of 2011 of Peringome Police Station registered for offence punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. - 2.In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to quash Annexure-A2 final report in the said case in so far as the petitioner is concerned. ## **Crl.M.C. No.7626 of 2016** **-2-** - 3.Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. - 4.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations in the final report are accepted as true in its entirety, the alleged offences will not be made out as against the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner was merely a trainer and had no role to play in the acts of the principal accused who were instrumental in running the Money Circulation Schemes. It is further pointed out that referring to an unreported decision of the Madras High Court in Crl.R.C.No.591 of 2009 dated 4.8.2009 that servants or persons who have no direct responsibility over the conduct of the business can never be held responsible for the acts of the principal offenders. It is finally submitted that the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is clearly not attracted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in **State of Kerala v.** **Crl.M.C. No.7626 of 2016 -3-** **A.Pareed Pillai and another** [AIR 1973 SC 326]. 5.The contentions of the learned Senior counsel is firmly refuted by the learned Public Prosecutor, who contends that these are matters which are to be considered by the trial court. It is also submitted the petitioner has got an inviolable right to raise all his contentions before the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage and convince the court below that he is entitled to a discharge. When such remedies are available to the petitioner, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court will not be justified in interfering under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 6.I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law enunciated in the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel wherein it has been held that the inherent powers conferred upon the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide ## **Crl.M.C. No.7626 of 2016** **-4-** enough to encompass almost all situations in order to prevent the abuse of process of any court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. - 7.The question, however, is when and under what situation, the High Court should step in and pass appropriate orders in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code in a criminal trial. - 8.In this context it will be relevant to remind oneself of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. It has been held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, this Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation could be sustained. That is the function of the trial Court. Section 482 of the Code is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a **Crl.M.C. No.7626 of 2016** **-5-** prosecution and brings about its closure without a fullfledged enquiry. Though High Court may exercise its power to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power has be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It is also settled that, if on taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, no offence was made out, then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under S.482 CrPC. ( See **MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi** , (1983 (1) SCC - 1) ; **Soundaram N V P.K. Ponnuraj and Another** ( 2014 (10) SCC 616 ). - 9.After having heard the rival submissions and after perusing the prosecution records, it does not appear to me **Crl.M.C. No.7626 of 2016** **-6-** that the petitioner has made out a case for quashing or proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. I refrain from passing opinion on the merits of the allegations at this stage lest it affect the case of either the prosecution or the accused. - 10.In the case in hand, it is submitted that the charge sheet has been filed before the Court below but the stage of section 239 of the Code has not reached. If that be the case the petitioner can raise all his contentions before the learned Magistrate and if the court below finds the Charge to be groundless, he is empowered to discharge the accused after recording his reasons. - In the result, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the peculiar facts of the instant case, the petitioner is permitted to appear before the learned Magistrate through his lawyer and pray for **Crl.M.C. No.7626 of 2016 -7-** discharge in absentia. If such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application on its merits and pass appropriate orders. Petition is disposed of as above. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/9/11/16