CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 07 KL CK 0102

Mohanan Gopalakrishnan vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 13 July 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. Badharudeen, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7659 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 359 words

A. Badharudeen, J

1.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioner who is the 3rd accused in Crime No. 133/2017 of Kadavanthara Police Station, wants to quash Annexure A1 FIR pertaining to him.

2.

Heard both sides and perused the relevant documents.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this crime was registered based on the allegation that the company and its Directors obtained Rs.36,50,000/- from the de facto complainant and issued invoice for the same on 31.03.2016. However, as per Annexure A4 Form No. DIR-12, particulars of appointment of Directors and the key managerial personnel and changes among them, the petitioner was appointed as Director only with effect from 06.08.2016 and he was not the Director of the company during the relevant period of crime. Therefore, the petitioner has no role in the allegation in the FIR and as such the FIR against the petitioner/3rd accused is liable to be quashed.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that this contention required to be addressed by the Investigating Officer based on the documents. Therefore, the Investigating Officer may be given necessary directions to address the grievance of the petitioner acting on Annexure A4.

5.

On perusal of the available materials at par with the arguments advanced by both sides, it is apparent from Annexure A4 that the petitioner got admitted as the Director of the company with effect from 06.08.2016. However, the genuineness of Annexure A4 and the said contention required to be addressed by the Investigating Officer to appraise the innocence of the petitioner. Therefore, the Investigating Officer is directed to consider Annexure A4 and the contentions raised, hereinabove by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and if the Investigating Officer is appraised of the fact that the petitioner joined as a Director of the company only with effect from 06.08.2016 and he has no role in the affairs of the company during the period of crime, the Investigating Officer may take appropriate decision in accordance with law to address the grievance of the petitioner.

With the above direction, this Crl. M.C. stands disposed of.