2025:KER:28190 Crl.M.C.No.2279/2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 2279 OF 2019 CRIME NO.2745/2011 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.121 OF 2014 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: SURESH KUMAR SHETTY, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRASEKHAR SHETTY, CHANDRASREE SADAN, GUMMOLA POST, BELLWAY, KUNDAPURA, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADVS.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682031 3 ANIL SIVASANKARAN PARTNER, M/S. RANJINI ASSOCIATES , 39/129, AMEES BUILDINGS, MULLASSERI CANAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. SMT. SEETHA S., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON 03.04.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28190 Crl.M.C.No.2279/2019 2 O R D E R The first accused in C.C.No.121/2014 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in the said case. The offence alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120B and 420 I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched by the petitioner and the second accused to cheat the third respondent/de facto complainant, they purchased electrical equipments worth Rs.3,65,85,000/- for their shop at Dubai, from the shop of the third respondent at Abu Dhabi during the period 13.05.2010 to 29.05.2010 and issued cheques by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the third respondent to believe that the aforesaid amount could be encashed by presenting the aforesaid cheques before the bank concerned. It is further alleged that the cheques so entrusted by the petitioner got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner, and that the petitioner and the second accused closed their establishment and left the country without making payment of the amount due to the third respondent. 2025:KER:28190 Crl.M.C.No.2279/2019 3 3. The case has been registered by the Ernakulam Central Police on the basis of a complaint preferred by the third respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After the completion of the investigation, the S.I of Police, Central Police Station, Ernakulam laid the final report alleging the commission of the aforesaid offences by the petitioner and the second accused. 4. In the present petition, the main challenge raised by the petitioner is that the prosecution launched against him is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 188 Cr.P.C. It is stated that the offence involved in this case is alleged to have been committed outside India, and hence the sanction of the Central Government was necessary for enquiry and trial. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 6. As already stated above, the crime against the petitioner was registered by the Ernakulam Central Police on the basis of a complaint preferred by the third respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the police. It is seen from the aforesaid complaint that the complainant has clearly stated towards the concluding portion of the complaint that the accused had submitted the business order at the office of the complainant situated within 2025:KER:28190 Crl.M.C.No.2279/2019 4 the limits of Ernakulam Central Police Station. The above aspect would go to show that a part of the offence of criminal conspiracy and cheating took place at Ernakulam. Going by the provisions contained in Section 178 Cr.P.C, where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another; or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one; or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. In the light of the aforesaid provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is absolutely no legal bar for proceeding with the trial of this case in a court situated at Ernakulam. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Section 188 Cr.P.C cannot be accepted since the offence involved in this case is not one committed exclusively, and in its entirety, outside India. Therefore, the challenge in this petition against the maintainability of the prosecution against the petitioner, is devoid of merit. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. (Sd/-) G. GIRISH, JUDGE jsr 2025:KER:28190 Crl.M.C.No.2279/2019 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO. 1007/2014 DATED 30.4.2014 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM IN CC NO. 121/2014 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.