ORDER : Annexure A2 protest complaint and all further proceedings in C.C.No.166/2017 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam is sought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Crime was registered on the allegation of offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 IPC against accused 1 to 5. Accused No.1 is a company based at Bombay and accused No.2 is the Managing Director. Accused No.3 is another company, a franchise under accused No.1. They were doing the business of canvassing deposits in the form of trading shares. Accused No. 4 and 5 are the stock brokers assisting accused Nos. 1 to 3. Earlier dividends were released in the year 2012. Again certain other deposits were made with the accused persons. For that also, dividends were released on few occasions. The allegation against accused Nos. 1 to 5 is that deposits were received with the intention to cause unlawful loss to the depositors including defacto complainant and unlawful gain to the accused by playing a device under the guise of shares. It is further alleged that dividends were released with the ultimate intention and purpose to further deceive and to avoid immediate action against the accused persons. 3. A final report was submitted against the defacto complainant which was objected by filing a protest complaint. It is at this stage some of the accused came up for quashing the protest complaint and further proceedings initiated based on it. The petitioners relied on the legal proposition laid down in paragraph 16 of the decision of this Court in Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran and another ( 2009 (1) KHC 801 ). 4. Principally, a right to file protest complaint against a refer report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is to secure justice and to prevent failure of justice in the hands of investigating officer or under a defective investigation. It is well recognized that the proceeding cannot be defeated or eschewed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without satisfying an act of abuse of the process of court or existence of a necessity to secure the ends of justice. There cannot be any different treatment in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against a final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., an FIR registered or a protest complaint. There cannot be any different treatment in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against a final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., an FIR registered or a protest complaint. The mere fact that the police has investigated and submitted a refer report by itself would not make any difference in the legal position, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against a protest complaint. The issuance of notice to the defacto complainant on submission of refer report, is not only precautionary in its nature, but a mandate to be complied with before accepting a refer report. 5. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not a remedy or solution for redressing all kinds of grievances. But it can be exercised sparingly so as to prevent abuse of the process of court or for securing ends of justice. While exercising inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible to have a detailed enquiry or appreciation with respect to admissibility or sustainability of evidence collected or statement recorded during the course of investigation in the matter of a final report submitted or to go into each and every details of a complaint or FIR registered and availability of any valid defence to the accused. The existence of valid grounds of defence may not be by itself sufficient to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It can be sparingly exercised only to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The expression 'to secure the ends of justice' should not be misunderstood with any valid defence available, though wide jurisdiction given within the compass of Section 482 Cr.P.C.. The second limb of Section 482 Cr.P.C.-'to secure the ends of justice', can be exercised only when there is no provision for redressing the grievance of the aggrieved, which would otherwise result in injustice or illegality. The salutary principle behind it is to avoid a situation not to leave any aggrieved person without any remedy, when there is patent illegality or injustice, which cannot be cured or redressed under any existing provisions of law. On the other hand, the expression 'to prevent abuse of the process of court' stands for to prevent any attempt made to abuse the authority of a court. On the other hand, the expression 'to prevent abuse of the process of court' stands for to prevent any attempt made to abuse the authority of a court. The first limb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. -to prevent abuse of the process of court -is also resting on the principle of promoting justice and to prevent injustice. An attempt to oppress or harass without any lawful cause with any oblique motive or illegitimate aim in the hands of a vindictive litigant would attract the first limb of Section 482 Cr.P.C.. When there is no provision for redressing the grievance, the second limb-'to secure the ends of justice' engrafted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would come into play. It can be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, but cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegation in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not or whether the evidence in question are reliable or not. 6. In the instant case, the complaint was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. A crime was registered in crime No.306/2015 of Central Police Station. After investigation, a refer report was submitted on the ground that what is involved is a civil dispute. It is thereafter a protest complaint was filed. It is at this stage, the petitioners came up under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the protest complaint. It is a case of collection of huge amount under the guise of shares by canvassing prospective depositors and in one or two occasions dividends were released. The allegation is that all these done with the dishonest intention to gain unlawful enrichment by causing unlawful loss. The conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by filing a refer report that the dispute is of civil nature prima facie appears to be not sustainable. When the transaction is not transparent and without any statutory authority intended to cause unlawful loss to various depositors and canvassed deposits under the guise of shares by constituting a limited company by the accused themselves, it would prima facie reveal the deception played on the defacto complainant and others. When the transaction is not transparent and without any statutory authority intended to cause unlawful loss to various depositors and canvassed deposits under the guise of shares by constituting a limited company by the accused themselves, it would prima facie reveal the deception played on the defacto complainant and others. The conclusion arrived at by the investigation under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. without going into the question of transparency of the business done and constitution of a limited company with the intention to wriggle out of personal liability by the accused prima facie appears to be defective. The creation of a limited company by the accused themselves, according to the defacto complainant is an attempt to wriggle out of the personal liability and it was used as yet another device of deception played on the defacto complainant. The submission of refer report under Section 173(2)Cr.P.C. treating the dispute as of civil nature is not a valid ground of attack as against a protest complaint. Mere existence of civil liability will not itself take away the criminal liability arising out of the transaction. So the matter would not come under any of the limbs of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Whether accused No. 4 and 5 would be vicariously liable to the act of accused No. 1 to 3 is a question to be adjudicated after evidence and it may be a defence available to them. But that may not be a ground to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C. is dismissed accordingly.