The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea by Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) leader and Manjeswaram MLA M.C. Kamaruddin for quashing the criminal cases registered against him for cheating those who have invested in a group of jewellery companies run by him.
Justice V.G. Arun while dismissing the MLA’s petition seeking to quash the FIRs observed that the court was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code so as to quash the FIRs registered against the petitioner.
Opposing his plea, the State government submitted that a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioner. In fact, the total loss incurred by the persons who invested in his companies named Fashion Gold Jewellery came to ₹13.3 crores.
Mastermind, says govt.
The government also submitted that he was the mastermind behind the fraud. Once the involvement of other directors were revealed in the investigation, they would also be arraigned as accused. A Special Investigation Team was conducting a detailed probe into all aspects of the case.
The Government Pleader submitted that many persons were lured into investing in the companies, using his political clout and goodwill. Besides, those who invested in the companies had not been issued any share certificates. The invested money seemed to have been diverted as salary, charges, and other revenue expenses, without utilising it in the company’s capital expansion. The element of cheating was very much apparent in the case. As many as 85 cases were registered in connection with the fraud in different police stations. The investigating officer required more time to collect evidence for the misappropriation of the money, the Pleader added.
Counsel for the MLA submitted that he was not the managing director of the company. He was only one of the directors and no other directors were arraigned as accused. The counsel alleged that the ruling party had influenced the police force to get criminal cases registered against him alone. In fact, he had no direct knowledge of the investment made by the complainants. Moreover, he was not a signatory to the agreements between the company and the investors, the counsel added.