The High Court at Ernakulam quashed the charges specific to the 4th accused in a criminal case involving hire purchase fraud. The court held that without allegations in the FIR or evidence of transfer/possession, the disputer could not be proceeded against.
The charge sheet and further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1146 of 2005() ------------------------CC.26/2003 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR ....................
PETITIONER(S): 4TH ACCUSED
K.M.RAJITH, S/O. RAJAN, KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, TALIKULAM VILLAGE, EDASSERY, TIPPUSULTHAN ROAD, VDANAPPILLY, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA
RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED :
ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.HEMA, J.
Crl.M.C. No.1146 of 2005
Dated 22nd day of October, 2009. O R D E R
A complaint was filed by second respondent against accused nos.1 to 3 (vide Annexure I) and as per the allegations, accused no.1 purchased an Ambassador car availing a hire purchase loan of Rs.39,000/- from the complainant and accused nos.2 and 3 are guarantors. They allegedly cheated complainant without paying the instalments and by misappropriating the amount.
Crl.M.C. No.1146/05
2
was not made an accused in FIR since no allegation was made against him in the complaint filed in this case. There is absolutely no allegation against petitioner in the complaint. Though a final report is filed, there is only a bare allegation made that the car was transferred to the petitioner. But petitioner was implicated as 4th accused without any supporting evidence. Annexure III to IV are the statements given under Section 161 of the Code by the relevant witnesses and as per those statements, petitioner is not implicated at all, it is pointed out.
documents available, it is clear that in the complaint filed, the petitioner was not an accused. There is no allegation that petitioner cheated the defacto complainant in any manner or he committed misappropriation. The present allegation is that the car involved in the case was transferred to petitioner. Normally in a case of transfer, there must be some documents revealing such transfer. Even if there are no such documents, there must be some evidence at least regarding possession of car by
Crl.M.C. No.1146/05
3
petitioner or to show that he was actually in possession of the car.
Petition is allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet against the petitioner can be proceeded with in the absence of allegations in the FIR or statements showing commission of the alleged offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
4th Accused (K.M.Rajith)
The State of Kerala
M/s Calvary Hire Purchase
K.HEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
