Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioners are accused 2 to 13 in C.C No.114/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Aluva. They have approached this Court with a petition for seeking quashment of Annexure II complaint filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 409, 424 and 120B r/w Section 34 I.P.C.
2. Contentions of the parties, in brief, are as follows : The complainant is follower of Shrimad Sudheendra Thirtha Swamiji, a saint worshiped by Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin Community. The said Swamiji gave ''Sanyasa Deeksha'' to the first accused in the year 1989 and renamed him as Raghavendra Thirtha. Sudheendra Thirtha Swamiji entrusted the first accused with some duties on 12-12-1994. In order to facilitate the proper discharge of the said duties, certain idols, gold jewelery etc. shown in the complaint were entrusted to the first accused. It is the allegation in the complaint that the first accused deviated from the path of sansyasm. There was a cleavage and chasm among the believers. It is seen that a civil suit was filed by Shrimad Sudheendra Thirtha Swamiji against the first accused. The decree passed in the suit is now sought to be executed before the District Court, Ernakulam. It is also seen from the records that a similar complaint had been filed before the Kadapa Police in Andhra Pradesh.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this Court as per order on Crl.M.C No.4052/2011 dated 19-10-2012 considered a similar plea raised by 1st and 14th accused. By the said order, this Court disallowed the plea of the first accused and quashed the complaint as against the 14th accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, accused 2 to 13, who were the petitioners in this matter, stand in the same footing as the 14th accused.
5. It is also contended that none of the offences alleged against the petitioners is attracted in this case, going by the allegations in the complaint. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the accused 2 to 6 are close relatives of the first accused, with whom the sacred articles were entrusted by Senior Swamiji.
6. In paragraph 9, it is mentioned that the sacred idols, paraphernalia, insignia, jewelery, assets etc. of the Samsthan had been kept and retained by the first accused, in company with accused 2 to 6 at Dwaraka Kala Mandir, Elamakkara, Kochi. It is also pointed out that the accused persons colluded together and entered into a criminal conspiracy based on which they have taken out all the sacred idols, paraphernalia, insignia, jewelery etc. out of Dwaraka Kala Mandhir, Pudukkalavattom, Elamakkara. It is also asserted that they have misappropriated the same.
7. In paragraph 14, it is mentioned that all the accused 2 to 14 have assisted and aided the first accused in the matter of fraudulently, concealing and removing the aforesaid assets of the Samsthan. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the list of invaluable articles, belonging to the community, would show that a person single handedly may not be able to shift them from one place to another.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the allegations in the complaint do not make out an offence. Therefore the reasoning adopted by this Court in the petition filed by the 14th accused applies to the petitioners also. On considering the averments in the complaint and the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge in the aforementioned petition, I find that a nice distinction should be drawn between accused 2 to 6 on one hand and accused 7 to 13 on the other hand. There are allegations that the first accused, in spite of passing a decree against him, did not obey the decree. Further, he is keeping the articles away from the reach of the court. The specific case against 2 to 6 is that they helped the first accused in removing/concealing the valuable property. Considering the difference in the allegations levelled against accused 2 to 6 on one hand and accused 7 to 13 on other hand, I find that the case against accused 7 to 13 can be treated at par with that against the 14th accused. This Court has already taken a view that the case against the 14th accused would not survive and it was an abuse of the process of the court.
In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Case against accused 7 to 13 (petitioners 6 to 12) are hereby quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The other petitioners shall appear before the competent court and move for bail. Thereafter, they shall be permitted to appear through counsel.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, amk JUDGE.