'Manjummel Boys' Cheating Case: Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Producers, Directs Them To Appear Before Police

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that a coordinate bench of the high court had already refused a plea for quashing the criminal proceedings.

The Single Judge hearing the plea for quashing had observed that the investigating officer had filed an objection stating that out of the amount invested by the complainant, a portion was diverted to the personal account of the accused. Therefore, the FIR discloses commission of a cognisable offence.

The Court noted that the relationship between the parties are governed by Annexure A2 agreement. Thus, the relationship between the parties is governed primarily by business transaction and that the dispute falls in the commercial sphere.

However, the Court also observed that there can be instances where commercial and criminal elements can converge. It observed:

“Since a learned Single Judge of this Court has already refused to quash the proceedings, it cannot be held that this is a purely commercial dispute. An element of criminality can be said be existent. However, the question before this Court is whether the same warrants custodial interrogation.

The Court came to the conclusion that this a case where custodial interrogation is not necessary. It opined:

“Since the distribution of profits and the mode of investment carried out by the parties are the source of this dispute, I am of the view that majority of those matters that could be governed by documentary evidence…”

However, the court was of the opinion that limited custody of the petitioners can be granted in the case to complete the investigation. Therefore, the petitioners were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 7^th July from 10 am to 5 pm, and if need be, on 8^th July as well.

Thus, the bail application was allowed.

The producers (petitioners/accused nos. 1 to 3) had filed the bail application. According to the de facto complainant (2nd respondent), the petitioners had conspired together to cheat the complainant and induced him to invest Rupees 7 crores on a promise that he would be paid 40% of the profits of the movie. Subsequently, an agreement was entered into between the parties (Annexure A2). Despite the huge success of the movie, he was not paid the profits as promised.

The petitioners argued that this was a purely commercial dispute and it was raised as a criminal case for the purpose of compelling payment of amounts alleged due to the complainant. It was also urged that the relationship between the parties were covered by Annexure A2 wherein the rights of the parties were clearly stipulated, including the manner in which the profits were to be distributed. Additionally, it was also submitted that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement for resolving the disputes between the parties.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the investigation conducted so far, the petitioners have prima facie committed the offences alleged. It was also submitted that the petitioners are attempting to cover up the offences committed under the guise of a civil dispute to delay payments.

Background

A crime was registered by the Maradu Police under Sections 120B (punishment for criminal conspiracy), 34 (common intention), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery for cheating) of the Indian Penal Code against Shawn Anthony, Soubin Shahir and the latter's father, who were producers of the movie.

The complaint was filed by a person called Siraj Valiyathara Hameed alleging that the petitioners cum producers made 'Manjummel Boys' under the banner of their production company M/S Parava Films LLP. It was alleged that the petitioners cum producers of 'Manjummel Boys' failed to repay the profits as per the terms of their investment agreement.

Earlier, the petitioners had moved the High Court for anticipatory bail in another application. However, the application was disposed of noting that the petitioners cannot be arrested in the light of stay of proceedings granted in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.) preferred for quashing the proceedings. The petitioners were given liberty to file fresh bail applications if the Crl.M.C. was decided against them. Later, the Crl.M.C. was dismissed.

Case Title: Shawn Anthony & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Case No: Bail Application No. 7487 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 361

Counsel for the Applicants: Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, Jayaraman S., Dhanya Sunny, Ann Milka George, Sherin Rachel Santhosh

Counsel for the Respondents: Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Benny Antony Parel, Pramitha Augustine, Afsana Khan, Sreeraj S. Rajaram, Sneha J., Adarsh Padmanabhan, Amal Dileep