Petitioner, accused of cheating under IPC 420, sought to quash FIR alleging civil dispute over property sale agreement predating the petition. Court declined to express opinion on culpability, finding petition not fit for invoking inherent jurisdiction to quash.
Petition to quash the FIR was dismissed.
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 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2012/11TH SRAVANA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 1006 of 2012 ()
CRIME NO.1512 OF 2011 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN BA.10793/2011 DATED 23-01-2012
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
P.M.SALAHUDHEEN NAINA, S/O.P.M.MOHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS, TEACHER, PUTHENVEETTIL, THRIKKAKKARA P.O., VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS :
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682031.
2. P.M.ABDULLAKUTTY, S/O.LATE P.V.MOHAMMED, PUNNILATH, ILLATHUMPADY, EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM - 682502.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
VK
Crl.MC.No. 1006 of 2012 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
| ANNEXURE-1: | CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.1512 OF 2011 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION. |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE-2: | TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 31.5.2007 EXECUTTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND SECOND RESPONDENT. |
| ANNEXURE-3: | TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LAWYER NOTICE DATED 20.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
| ANNEXURE-4: | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER TO THE COUNSEL FOR SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 2.12.2010. |
| ANNEXURE-5: | TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION DATED 15.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. |
| ANNEXURE-6: | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 25.11.2011 IN WPC NO.30975/2011 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. |
| ANNEXURE-7: | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.1.2012 IN B.A.NO. 10793/2011 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
/ TRUE COPY /
P.A. TO JUDGE
VK
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1006 of 2012 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2012
O R D E R
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1512/11 of Narakkal Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure I is the FIR registered in the crime. That crime was registered on a petition sent by the de facto complainant to the Chief Minister of the State and that being forwarded to the Station House Officer concerned for necessary action. The gist of the accusation imputed in that petition is that making the complainant believe that an immovable property having an extent of 3½ cents belonged to the petitioner and promising to convey that property, the petitioner collected a
Cr.M.C.No.1006 of 2012
:: 2 ::
sum of Rs.50,000/- from him. At that point of time, the petitioner had no subsisting title or right over that property. However, later, he obtained title from the owner thereof and conveyed that property to another receiving valuable consideration. Complainant had been deceived by false representation made by the petitioner and thereby he suffered wrongful loss and the petitioner/accused obtained wrongful gain, is the case. The crime registered is now pending in investigation.
Cr.M.C.No.1006 of 2012
:: 3 ::
could be treated only as of a civil nature. So much so, Annexure 1 FIR registered in the crime is per se unsustainable and liable to be quashed, is the submission of the counsel.
by the counsel as aforesaid, and taking note of the Annexures produced with the petition as well, I find, it is too early to form an opinion whether the petitioner is culpable of the offence imputed of. The investigating agency, no doubt, has to examine all circumstances connected with the crime to conclude whether the imputation of cheating made against the petitioner constitute the offence covered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. That is a matter to be considered by the investigating agency, and at this stage, on the facts and circumstances presented, it may not be proper or appropriate to this court to express any opinion thereof.
Cr.M.C.No.1006 of 2012
:: 4 ::
of this court is called for to quash Annexure 1 FIR.
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE
sk/-
//true copy//
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR is maintainable at this stage.
Whether the dispute regarding cheating is suitable for quashing the criminal proceedings based on the agreement date.
P.M.Salahudheen Naina
State Of Kerala
P.M.Abdullakutty
S.S.Satheesachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
