The petitioner in Crl.M.C 6349/2013 is the 2nd accused in C.C No. 1562/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Kannur, and the petitioner in Crl. M.C 3092/2014 is the 11th accused in the said case. These two petitioners seek orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing the final report as against them on the ground that the final report submitted by the police does not contain any definite allegation against them, and that the prosecution cannot in any manner prove or improve the case as against them if the case goes to trial. The offences involved in the case are under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC. The matter is concerning a vicious loan transaction involving a huge amount, in which a bank sustained heavy loss. The police alleges different role one way or the other against the different accused involved in the crime. The Investigating Officer has filed objection statement that final report was filed by the police after thorough investigation revealing the Crl. M.C No. 6349 of 2013 & 2 Crl. M.C No. 3092 of 2014 role of these petitioners at the different stages of the vicious transaction. 2. I heard both sides and perused the final report which is under challenge. I find that some allegations are there against the 11th accused regarding his complicity as a member of the conspiracy alleged by the police, and the role alleged as against the second accused is culpable omission. No doubt, culpable omission will also amount to act of offence under the Indian Penal Code. Whether these petitioners had in fact any active or culpable role in the alleged transaction, or whether they are in any manner parties to the alleged conspiracy, or vicious transaction, are all matters to be considered by the trial court, either when discharge is sought by the petitioners, or when the case as such goes to trial.
3. On a perusal of the final report, I find that the extreme step of quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be now resorted to, when some allegations and materials are there against these two petitioners in the final report. Of course, they can approach trial court for discharge, if they are so confident that the materials produced by the police in this case will not even prima facie prove their complicity in the alleged vicious loan transaction, either by any positive act or by culpable omission. Without Crl. M.C No. 6349 of 2013 & 3 Crl. M.C No. 3092 of 2014 prejudice to their right to seek discharge under the law, these two petitions can be dismissed.
In the result, these two petitions are dismissed, however without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek discharge before the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. M.C 3092/14 made a request to exempt him from personal appearance. This is a matter to be considered by the trial court. He can make application before the trial court, which will definitely be judiciously considered by the trial court.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab