Allowed

P.R.Danavan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Aug 2009Crl.MC/597/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal writ petition to quash a Final Report and the cognizance taken under Sections 406, 420, and 423 IPC. The dispute arose from a discrepancy in property extent between an agreement and sale deed, later rectified. The Court held it was essentially a civil dispute and continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Annexure-A1 Final Report in C.C.734/2008 and took no cognizance.

P.R.Danavan Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 597 of 2009()

¶6

-----------------------CC.734/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------1. P.R.DANAVAN S/O. RAJAPPAN, AGED 52 YEARS, PARAMBATHERIL HOUSE, KEDAMANGALAM, PARAVUR.

¶9

2. SUJA, W/O. P.R.DHANAVAN, AGED 40 YEARS, PARAMBATHERIL HOUSE, KEDAMANGALAM, PARAVUR.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.K.R.VINOD

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

--------------------------STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED:

¶14

R2. P.A.ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI, KUNNATHU HOUSE, PUTHUPALLIPURAM KARA, TRIKKAKARA NORTH, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

**(ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 23/03/2009 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1518/09)*

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV.SMT.K.V.RESHMI

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶20

CRL.M.C.NO. 597 OF 2009

¶21

Dated 19^th August 2009

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Petitioners are the accused and second respondent the complainant in C.C.734/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur. Petitioners and second respondent entered into Annexure-A3 agreement for sale dated 7/6/2007 whereunder petitioners agreed to sell 17.418 cents of property in R.S.No.176/5B and 176/5A1 of Paravur village showing the side measurement of the property agreed to be sold. Pursuant to Annexure-A3 agreement, Annexure-A4 sale deed was executed in respect of the same property on 23/7/2007. Though side measurements shown in Annexure-A4 sale deed are exactly the same side measurement shown in Annexure-A3 agreement, instead of the extent of 17.418 shown as in Annexure-A3 agreement, in Annexure-A4 sale deed the extent shown as 24.418 cents. Realising the mistake, petitioners executed Annexure-A5 rectification deed dated 24/1/2008 stating that the

¶24

CRMC 597/09

¶25

¶26

extent is only 17.418 cents and not 24.418 cents as shown in Annexure-A4 sale deed. According to the petitioners when there was an attempt of trespass into the property, in excess of the property transferred under Annexure-A3 sale deed, petitioners instituted O.S.82/2008 before the Sub court, Paravur seeking a decree for injunction and Annexure-A8 O.S.139/2008 was filed by them as against Government to get mutation effected in respect of the property. Second respondent thereafter filed Annexure-A2 complaint alleging that petitioners committed offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. It was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. When the case was registered based on the order of the Magistrate, petitioners filed Crl.M.C.1445/2008, to quash the FIR contending that the offences are not attracted. Under Annexure-A9 order Crl.M.C.1445/2008 was disposed directing the investigating officer to consider all aspects including the contentions raised by the petitioners. Sub Inspector thereafter completed the investigation and laid Annexure-A1 final report alleging that petitioners committed the offences under Sections

¶27

CRMC 597/09

¶28

¶29

406, 423 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 final report and cognizance taken.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for

¶31

petitioners and Section respondent were heard.

¶32

Annexure-A3 agreement for sale

¶33

establish that property agreed to be sold by the petitioners and agreed to be purchased by second respondent, is the property described in Annexure-A3 with the side measurement having an extent of 17.418 cents. It is the very same property which was sold under Annexure-A4 sale deed thereafter. There is absolutely no difference in the side measurements or the description of the property in Annexure-A3 agreement for sale and Annexure-A4 sale deed except that instead of 17.418 cents seen in Annexure-A3, the extent is shown as 24.418 in Annexure-A4 sale deed. Finding that mistake occurred in giving the extent in Annexure-A4 sale deed, petitioners executed Annexure-A5 rectification deed whereunder the extent was correctly shown as 17.418 cents. In the light of Annexure-A3 agreement for sale and description of the

¶34

CRMC 597/09

¶35

¶36

property transferred under Annexure-A4 sale deed by executing Annexure-A5 rectification deed, it cannot be said that petitioners committed any of the offences as alleged.

¶37

The dispute with regard to the right obtained under Annexure-A4 agreement and whether it is 17.418 cents or 24.418 is being agitated in O.S.82/2008 as well as in O.S.139/2009 pending before Sub court, Paravur. The dispute is essentially of civil nature. In any event, in the nature of allegations, none of the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 423 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code are attracted. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of process of court.

¶38

Petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report in C.C.734/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur is quashed.

¶39

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶40

uj.

P.R.Danavan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.R.Danavan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harikumar Vs State of Kerala

Cybee Herbal Laboratories (P) Ltd., Vs India Vision Satellite Communication and

Jayendran P.M. & 7 Others Vs State of Kerala and 2 Others

Sumesh Babu Vs State of Kerala

T. Johnson Vs State of Kerala and Another

K.B.Sampath Vs the State of Kerala