The court quashed criminal proceedings against two accused alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust. Finding that even on accepted face value, allegations did not attract IPC offences or constitute abuse of process, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the trial.
The petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC No. 600/10 are 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 MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933
Crl.MC.No. 2034 of 2011()
------------------------CC.600/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... (CRIME NO.560 OF 2005 OF SASTHAMCOTTAH POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT)
PETITIONER(S): 1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED:
-------------------------------------------------------------1. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AAKKANAD HOUSE, NADUVILE MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2. ANANDAVALLY, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AAKKANAD HOUSE, NADUVILE MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, SRI.P.I.GEORGEKUTTY.
RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED:
R2. N.G.SIVAN PILLAI, NEDUVELIL VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKADU PADINJARUM MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE.
***( ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 8.7.2011 IN CRMA 4257/2011 IN CRMC 2034/2011) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS**
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
CRMC.NO.2034/2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE:
ANNEX.A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALONGWITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DTD. 30/04/2008.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,J.
-----------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 2034 of 2011
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2011.
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC.No.600/10 of JFCM, Sasthamkottah. It is alleged that the petitioner had taken on rent two rooms bearing Nos. 8 and 9 of Ward No. 2 of Sasthamkottah Panchayat from R2. It is stated that the rent payable was Rs.2,000/- per month. On going through the complaint, it is seen that an agreement was executed with regard to the same. It is alleged in the complaint that for the purpose of obtaining loan from the bank, the second accused approached the complainant to get the original agreement so as to show it to the bank officials for obtaining loan and got the same but was not returned at all. It was also stated that till 10.09.2006, the business was conducted by the tenants (petitioner herein). On the night of 30.09.2006, the articles/movables which
Crl.M.C. No. 2034 of 2011 2
were in the shop rooms were removed by the petitioners and business was started in another room obtained by them on rent. There is no case that the movables which were removed belonged to the complainant/R2. The other allegation is that the petitioners did not pay the entire rent in arrears. For that purpose the second respondent should have move the civil court. It was alleged in the complaint that petitioners had induced the complainant to believe that one “hyper kit” would be given by them to the complainant. According to the petitioners , there are no materials to hold that there is any substance in the complaint. According to the complainant a total sum of Rs.17,100/- has to be paid by the petitioners to the second respondent. I find that even if all the allegations are accepted on its face value, it does not attract an offence under Section 406 or 420 IPC or any other offence. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after investigation the case was
Crl.M.C. No. 2034 of 2011 3
referred as mistake of fact. Considering all these aspects I find that the proceedings in CC.600/10 before the court below would be an abuse of process of court. As such this petition is allowed. Further proceedings in CC.No.600/10 is quashed.
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
smvd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the alleged facts regarding non-return of agreement and removal of movables attract offences under Section 406 or 420 IPC.
Whether continued criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of court.
Gopakrishnan Nair
Anandavally
State of Kerala
N.G. Sivan Pillai
N.K. Balakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
