High Court of Kerala allowed a Cr.M.C. challenging an FIR for cheating and cyber crimes filed against a web developer and her husband, quashing the proceedings because allegations were unsubstantiated and the complainant failed to pay dues.
Annexure-I complaint and Annexure-II FIR 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 B.KEMAL PASHA
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/14TH ASWINA, 1937
Crl.MC.No. 1240 of 2015 ()
--------------------------CMP. NO.10982/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM.
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 & 2:
1. BINOY M.A., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN THAMPAN, VIJAY VIHAR HOUSE, MORAYUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. NAVEEN CHAND, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, KARTHIKA, KAKKATT HOUSE, TENHIPALAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SRI.T.K.SANDEEP, SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR, SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN, SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (MULLAKKARIYIL).
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.
2. MANJU N.NAIR, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.P.V.NARAYANAN NAIR, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, 'MANJULA', OLAKARA P.O., OLAKARA AMSOM & DESOM, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 306.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.PUSHPODARAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
Crl.MC.No. 1240 of 2015
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
| ANNEXURE I: | A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.M.P.NO. 10982/2014 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM DATED 24/10/2014. |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE II: | A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1079/2014 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION DATED 25/10/2014. |
| ANNEXURE III: | A TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/07/2013. |
| ANNEXURE IV: | A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAILS SENT BY OTWOHOSTING IN THE NAME OF 1ST PETITIONER DATED 27/07/2013. |
| ANNEXURE V: | TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY 'OTWOHOSTING' FOR THE SAME DATED 27/07/2013. |
| ANNEXURE VI: | A TRUE COPY OF THE WEB DETAILS FOR THE DOMAIN NAME WWW.CHACCCHEMMAD.COM AS DISPLAYED IN THE WEBSITE NAMED WWW.WHOIS.COM. |
| ANNEXURE VII: | A DRAFT DESIGN OF THE WEBSITE NAMED WWW.CHCCCHEMMAD.COM DURING ITS WORKING STAGE. |
| ANNEXURE VIII: | A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER E-MAIL SENT BY OTWOHOSTING TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 21/06/2014. |
| ANNEXURE IX: | A TRUE COPY OF THE SENT BY OTWOHOSTING TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 27/07/2014. |
| ANNEXURE X: | A COMPUTER COPY OF THE WEBSITE PRESENTLY AVAILABLE ONLINE. |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
................................................................ CRL. M.C. No. 1240 of 2015 ............................................................... Dated this the 6th day of October, 2015
O R D E R
Petitioners are A1 and A2 in Crime No.1079/14 of the
Kondotty Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 65, 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
CRL.M.C.No. 1240 of 2015
-: 2 :-
the website by hacking, and the website itself was lost.
pointed out that through Annexure VIII, the defacto complainant was asked to make the payment for the web space and to keep that domain registration as such. Even though repeated requests were made, the defacto complainant has not cared to pay the required charges for the web space. Finally, Annexure-IX letter was issued by showing the domain details, and once again given an opportunity to the defacto complainant to get the web space resumed. As the defacto complainant has not cared to do it, she has lost the web space.
CRL.M.C.No. 1240 of 2015
-: 3 :-
complaint and Annexure-II FIR based on the complaint are liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-I complaint and Annexure-II FIR are hereby quashed.
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE
ul/-
[True copy] P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations of cheating and hacking under Section 420 IPC and the Information Technology Act out an offence given the inactivity of the complainant to pay charges?
Is the FIR and complaint liable to be quashed due to lack of evidence and failure of the 2nd respondent to appear?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Binoj M.A.
Naveen Chand
State of Kerala
Manju N.Nair
B kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
