Rubesh Kumar vs. State Of Kerala

The applicants herein are the accused in Crime No.457 of 2018 registered at the Mancherry Police Station under Section 420 r/w. Sec.34 of the IPC.

The de facto complainant is running a mobile phone shop at Manjeri. He was approached by the employees of the applicants herein and he was induced to believe that if he invests Rs.10 lakhs in M/s. Momomal Info Solutions Private Ltd., a company of which the applicants herein are Directors, he would be made the distributor of the services of the Company, which include providing prepaid, DTH, utility and value added services. According to the de facto complainant, he invested a sum of Rs.10 lakhs which was transferred to the account of the Company. He was provided with mobile phones worth Rs.1,50,000/- and recharge coupons worth Rs.1 lakh. However, thereafter, the applicants refused to provide with the services which they had assured. Stating these allegations, a complaint was lodged before the Circle Inspector of Police, on the basis of which, the instant Crime was registered.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would contend that the allegations levelled against them are without basis. It is contended that Annexure-A1 agreement styled as a Distributor Agreement was entered into between the applicants and the de facto complainant on 23.6.2018. The terms of the agreement clearly detail the obligations, responsibilities and duties of both the parties

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is in the early stages and the investigation conducted till date has revealed that the applicants do not have a permanent set up at Chennai. It is further submitted that large sums of money was misappropriated by the applicants by inducing the de facto complainant and persuading him to sign a distributor agreement.

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials made available and also Annexures-A1 to A7 produced by the applicants. It appears from Annexures-A1 and A2 that the de facto complainant was appointed as a distributor of the products and services of the Company. Annexures-A3 to A7 would reveal that the Company is having a valid registration and is BA:6194/18 4 conducting its business as per law. From the complaint, it appears that when the de facto complainant contacted the applicants for the purpose of availing their services, the applicants refused to provide with the same. Prima facie, the dispute appears to be contractual. In that view of the matter, the custodial interrogation of the applicants does not appear to be required. By directing the applicants to co-operate with the investigation, they can be granted an order of pre-arrest bail. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions: i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier. ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.