The criminal case originated from a complaint filed by businessman Sreedharan Nair, who alleged that he was defrauded of Rs. 40 lakhs by the prime accused Saritha S. Nair and Biju Radhakrishnan in connection with a purported solar energy project. According to the prosecution, the two main accused advertised the registration of a company named “Team Solar Renewable Energy Company Ltd.” and induced the complainant to believe that the entity had recognition from both central and state governments. They allegedly promised to establish a solar plant worth Rs. 39.75 crores at Kinfra Park, Palakkad, for an upfront payment of Rs. 5 crores, with the remaining costs to be met through government subsidy and loan. The complainant issued two cheques totalling Rs. 40 lakhs in favour of the company, which were allegedly encashed at the discretion of the main accused.
Tenny Joppen was arrayed as the third accused in the crime registered before the Konni Police Station. The prosecution alleged that Joppen, who was employed as personal staff to the then Chief Minister, facilitated the offence by receiving a phone call from Saritha S. Nair to lend credibility to the scheme, by meeting the complainant at his office and representing the company as a bona fide establishment, and by accepting a gift and a portion of the diverted funds. The charges against Joppen were framed under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
Settlement and Interim Proceedings
On July 3, 2026, the Kerala High Court passed an interim order recording the submission made by counsel for the de facto complainant, Sreedharan Nair, that the dispute between him and Joppen had been amicably settled. The complainant subsequently filed an affidavit affirming the settlement. The court noted that the settlement was placed on record and that the parties had undertaken to give effect to it.
Reasoning of the Court
Justice C.S. Dias, after considering the facts and materials on record, held that the criminal proceedings against Joppen could be quashed under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The court observed that the alleged offences were not heinous or of a serious nature. It further noted that no public interest or element of societal concern was involved in the matter. The chances of conviction were deemed remote in view of the settlement reached between the parties. Continuing the proceedings, the court reasoned, would merely burden the judicial process without advancing the cause of justice. The settlement, the court added, would promote harmony between the parties and restore peace.