Allowed

Dr.P.Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2015Crl.MC/1082/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought quashing of an FIR and private complaint filed for offence under Section 420 IPC. The High Court held the allegations failed to reveal necessary ingredients of cheating in a transaction involving a pending civil suit and property dispute, leading to quashing of the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-C FIR in Crime No.2291 of 2012 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.

Dr.P.Ajith Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/22ND ASWINA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1082 of 2013

¶6

OS 525/2012 OF SUB COURT, KANNUR. CRIME NO. 2291/2012 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. DR.P.AJITH KUMAR, S/O. DEVADAS, "ASHOKA", THILLERI, CANTONMENT KANNUR- 670 002.

¶9

2. DR. ANITHA, W/O.DR.P.AJITH KUMAR, "ASHOKA", THILLERI, CANTONMENT, KANNUR- 670 002.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

2. C.K. SNEHADEEPA, W/O. SUNILKUMAR PANNIAN, "SURABHI", PALLIKKUNNU POST, NOW RESIDING AT "NIRMAL", THALAP, KANNUR - 670002.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 1082 of 2013

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.525 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, KANNUR.

¶21

ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN OS.NO.525 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, KANNUR.

¶22

ANNEXURE C : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R.ALONG WITH F.I.S. IN CRIME NO.2291/2012 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶28

====================== Crl.M.C. No. 1082 of 2013 =======================

¶29

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2015

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

A private complaint has been filed alleging offence under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as against the petitioners, by the 2^nd respondent before the Judicial Fist Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Kannur. The said complaint was referred to the Police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Consequently, Crime No.2291 of 2012 of the Kannur Town Police Station has been registered through Annexure-C First Information Report for the offence under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

¶32

The case of the complainant is that by agreeing to sell the property of the petitioners, the petitioners obtained an

¶33

¶34

Crl.M.C. No.1082 of 2013

¶35

amount of ₹25,00,000/-, by way of part of consideration from the 2^nd respondent and thereafter, they have backed out from the promise, and so far they have not cared to execute the sale deed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that a civil suit is pending in the matter as O.S.No.525 of 2012 before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kannur. The said suit was filed by the 2^nd respondent herein as plaintiff seeking a decree for the return of the advance money/part of consideration allegedly paid. In the suit, the property was attached and for lifting the attachment, the petitioners have furnished security for ₹25,00,000/- and got the attachment lifted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was when the security was furnished and the attachment was about to be lifted, the 2^nd respondent has chosen to file Annexure-C private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Kannur, based on which the present crime has been registered. It is the further case of the petitioners that only an amount of ₹6,00,000/-

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.1082 of 2013

¶37

¶38

was received by the petitioners from the 2^nd respondent and it was a mere money lending by the 2^nd respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, that is the reason why the 2^nd respondent has filed the suit just for the recovery of the advance money, without seeking a better relief of specific performance of the contract. Even according to the 2^nd respondent, there is only an oral agreement and the same is not even in writing.

¶39

At any stretch of imagination, the contents of the complaint as well as Annexure-C First Information Report do not reveal the necessary ingredients of an offence under Section 420 IPC. Matters being so, further investigation in the matter will be of no use at all and will be a sheer waste of time and energy. In such case, this Court is satisfied that Annexure-C First Information Report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto can be quashed.

¶40

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-C First

¶41

Crl.M.C. No.1082 of 2013

¶42

¶43

Information Report in Crime No.2291 of 2012 of the Kannur Town Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant

¶44

thereto, are hereby quashed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

B.KEMAL PASHA JUDGE

¶47

DSV/14/10/15

¶48

// True Copy //

¶49

P.A. To Judge

Dr.P.Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.P.Ajith Kumar 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

S.Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

Eramakk Veettil Puthiyakath Beevikutty Vs State of Kerala

Babu @ Hari Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Babu @ Bomma Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Anilkumar.a Vs State of Kerala

Sreenivas Pai Vs Jayaram M.N.