Geetha K.P. v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/5TH PHALGUNA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 3905 of 2013 () --------------------------- AGAINST CC 83/2013 of C.J.M COURT, KALEPETTA CRIME NO. 515/2011 OF KALPETTA POLICE STATION , WAYANAD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO 4:
------------------------------------- GEETHA K.P, AGED 42 YEARS W/O P.V MUKUNDAN, PERICHERIVALAPPIL HOUSE, MUTTIL P.O WRIYAT, WAYANAD 673122 BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.T.B.REMANI SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.V.BHARGAVI (PANANGAD) SMT.P.A.RINUSA SMT.ANNIE JACOB RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031
3. N.K. MUJEEB, S/O IBRAHIM, NADUKANDIYIL HOUSE, AYIRAMKOLLI AMBALAVAYAL P.O, SULTHAN BATHERY 673593 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.MONI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 3905 of 2013 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------ ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17-06-2011 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO 515/2011 OF THE KALPETTA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO 515/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-09-2011 IN C.P NO 8/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER DATED 01--1-2008 ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY FO THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 21-01-2011 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 15-01-2011 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.
C ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 21-07-2012 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER(HEALTH), WAYANAD ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13-08-2013 IN CRL M.C NO 3091/2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.
P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 24th February, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the 4th accused in C.C No.83 of 2013 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court. Kalpetta, involving the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. She was a clerical staff of one Chitty Company by-name M/s.Sreekovil Chits Pvt. Ltd, Kalpetta. Now she is a Clerk-Typist in the Health Department of Kerala. She resigned from the Chitty Company on 18.12.2011. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are respectively the Managing Director, the Assistant Director and the Director of the said Chitty Company. In June, 2011, different complaints came from the subscribers against the persons running the chitty company. On those complaints, the Police registered crimes under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, the Police Submitted final report under Section 420 of I.P.C against the Directors including the Managing Director and also the petitioner
herein, on the allegation that she was Office Assistant-cumManager of the Chitty Company and she had some role in the alleged misappropriation of amounts and cheating. The petitioner now seeks orders quashing the prosecution on the ground that she was only an employee of the company, and that she had no role at all in the dealings of the company except as a clerical staff, and she had not appropriated any amount from the funds of the company during her tenure as clerical staff.
2.
I heard both sides and perused the materials including the complaint made by the subscribers and also the final report submitted by the police. The petitioner has produced some documents showing that she was only a clerical staff of the Chitty Company, and that she had resigned on 18.12.2011. On a perusal of the different complaints, which led to the registration of crime, I find that no complaint contains definite allegation against the petitioner herein. The definite allegations are against the other accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the Managing Director, the Assistant Director and the Director of the Chittty
Company. The final report submitted by the police does not show how the petitioner had any vicious role in the alleged transaction of misappropriation or cheating. The final report also does not explain how a clerical staff could involve in the alleged misappropriation or cheating. It appears that the Police proceeded against her and submitted final report just because she was also a staff of the company. As a staff, she can be prosecuted only if there are definite materials implicating her in the alleged dealings and dishonest misappropriation of the funds of the company. But here, I find nothing to implicate here, or to show that she had any involvement or role in the alleged transactions or dealings. The persons, who conducted the Chitty Company are the accused Nos.1 to 3.
Normally, they must be held liable and responsible for the acts and deeds of the company including misdeeds and misappropriation. A clerical staff or other staff of the company can be prosecuted only if there is definite material to show that clerical staff had some role in the alleged transaction. Here there is no material against the petitioner herein.
report shows that she was Office Assistant-cum-Manager, but the materials produced by the petitioner show that she was only a clerical staff. The Police has not produced anything to show that the petitioner herein was the Manager of the Chitty Company. Even as per the prosecution records, the management of the Chitty Company was in the hands of the 1st accused as Managing Director. It is not known how the petitioner happened to be prosecuted as Manager when she was only a clerical staff. Thus, on a perusal of the entire prosecution records, I find nothing to implicate the petitioner herein in the transaction of misappropriation or cheating alleged against the accused Nos.1 to 3 as Managing Director, the Assistant Director, and the Director of the Company, which cheated many subscribers. I find that the prosecution against the petitioner herein is liable to be quashed in the absence of any material against her.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner herein in C.C No.843 of 2013 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kalpetta will stand
quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond if any, executed by her will stand discharged.
Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge