w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Manu Nair, Proprietor, Pearl International, Ernakulam v/s State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others

    Crl. MC. No. 4088 of 2016 (A)

    Decided On, 02 February 2021

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN

    For the Petitioner: P.S. Sreedharan Pillai, Arjun Sreedhar, Arun Krishna Dhan, T.K. Sandeep, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1-R2, Srinath Girish, Advocate, D. Chandrasenan, Sr. GP.



Judgment Text

1. The petitioner is the 1st accused in CC No. 137/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. The above case is registered based on Annexure-II final report submitted by the Kozhikode Town Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner and the other accused is under Sec. 420 IPC.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the 1st accused, who is the petitioner herein is running a recruiting agency by name 'Pearl International' at Kochi. He is the proprietor of the said firm. The 2nd respondent, who is the defacto complainant in this case alleged that his son, who is the 3rd respondent herein was recruited by the petitioner's firm to a company named 'Albaddad Capital'. According to the defacto complainant, the petitioner along with the 2nd accused subsequently terminated his son from the job with a pending salary of Rs.72,000/-. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioner and the other accused committed offence under Sec. 420 IPC.3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations in Annexure-II final report are accepted, no offence under Sec. 420 IPC is made out. The counsel submitted that the averments in Annexure-II final report, even if admitted, will amount to only civil liability and no criminal offence is made out. Moreover, the counsel also take me through Annexures-III to X to contend that the prosecution case is unsustainable and what is stated by the defacto complainant is not correct.5. The Public Prosecutor submitted that these are matters to be proved before the trial court at the time of the trial. The Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court may not interfere with the final report invoking the powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, who is the proprietor of the 'Pearl International'.6. After considering the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor, according to me, there is some force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. I perused the final report in this case. The averments in the final report are extracted herein.“Malayalam”7. A reading of the above statement, it is clear that the allegation against the petitioner is that an amount of Rs.72,000/- is due as salary to the son of the defacto complainant. It is also alleged that the son of the defacto complainant was terminated from service without any reason. Even if these facts are accepted in toto, according to me, the offence under Sec. 420 IPC is not made out.8. Moreover, Annexure-III is the certificate issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, under Rule 10(2) of the Emigration Act, 1983. A perusal of Annexure-III will show that the 'Pearl International' is authorised to do the business under Sec. 10 of the Emigration Act. Annexure-IV is the power of attorney issued by 'Albaddad Capital, which is the company in which the son of the defacto complainant was recruited by the petitioner.In Annexure-IV, it is stated that Albaddad Company authorise M/s.Pearl International to act on behalf and conduct formalities that may be required by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, as part of such requirements pertaining to do the recruitment. Annexure-V is the interview permission acknowledgement letter issued by the Government of India. Annexure-VI is also the interview permission acknowledgement letter. Annexure-VII is a letter issued by the 3rd respondent in which he agreed to accept the job at 'Albaddad Capital' for a salary of 2000 dirhams. In the letter, it is also stated that he is satisfied about the details of the company, in which he is appointed. Annexure-VIII is an affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, in which 3rd respondent stated that in any case, if he could not continue with the company or for the early termination from the company, due to any problem like health, non-competent to work without having adequate knowledge about work etc., he know that M/s. Pearl International is not liable for that and he has no right to make any case or claim against M/s.Pearl International. Annexure-VIII is also a letter issued by the 3rd respondent to M/s. Pearl International.9. The prosecution has got a case that the petitioner was appointed in a company, which is black listed by the Government of India. The petitioner send an email to verify the same to the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Government of India. The Government of India gave a reply in which the black listed companies are narrated in Annexure-X. 'Albaddad Capital' is not included in the black listed companies, appended to the email, which is Annexure-X.10. In the light of the abov

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e facts, according to me, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court. As I said earlier, even if the entire allegations in Annexure-II final report are accepted, no offence under Sec. 420 IPC is made out. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court.Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.137/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode are quashed.
O R