Allowed

Santhosh Mani v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2015Crl.MC/869/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.MC.No. 869 of 2015, a single judge of the Kerala High Court addressed a private complaints regarding alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from a property sale dispute. The court held that the dispute was purely civil in nature as the buyer had initiated civil proceedings despite issuing a lawyer's notice, making the FIR un maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous case allowed. First Information Report in Crime No.57/2015 of Thiruvalla Police Station and all further proceedings based on it quashed.

Santhosh Mani Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/13TH ASWINA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 869 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 57/2015 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2 :

¶8

1. SANTHOSH MANI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SELVAMANI, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, ULIYAZHATHURA VILLAGE, CHEMBAZHANTHI MURI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. DAVID LALY, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.DAVID, SHARON HOUSE, NEAR GOOD SHEPHERD, ARAMADA P.O, KUNNAPPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶11

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031, (CRIME NO.57/2015 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT)

¶14

2. MADHUSOODHANAN E.G., AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, INDAMTHURUTHIL, NEERETTUPURAM, THALAVADI VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 689 572.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 869 of 2015

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, THIRUVALLA.

¶22

ANNEXURE II: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.57/2015 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION

¶23

ANNEXURE III: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FIRST PETITIONER AND SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 04.07.2014

¶24

ANNEXURE IV: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶31

=================== CRL.M.C. No.869 of 2015

¶32

==================== Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2015

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

The 1^st petitioner has entered into an agreement for sale of his property, with the 2^nd respondent herein. Out of an amount of ₹1,00,00,000/- fixed as consideration, an amount of ₹60,00,000/- was paid by the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st petitioner as part of consideration and advance. Even though, Lawyer’s notice was caused to be issued by the 1^st petitioner herein to the 2^nd respondent, demanding the 2^nd respondent to pay the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed, the 2^nd respondent has not turned up. On getting the notice, he has chosen to file a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvalla alleging offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 415, 417 and 420 IPC read with Section 34IPC, on the ground that there was subsisting liabilities with regard to the property and

¶35

CRL.M.C. No.869 of 2015 2

¶36

the liabilities were not cleared.

¶37

In fact, the property was subjected to equitable

¶38

mortgage with a Bank and SARFAESI proceedings were initiated by the Bank. By way of One Time Settlement, the entire claim of the Bank was cleared by the 1^st petitioner herein and it was after that the Lawyer’s notice was issued. On going through the matter, it seems that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The private complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent is not maintainable and therefore the same is liable to be quashed.

¶39

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure II First Information Report in Crime No.57 of 2015 of the Thiruvalla Police Station and all further proceedings based on it are hereby quashed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

B. KEMAL PASHA JUDGE

¶42

DSV/6/10/15

¶43

// True Copy //

¶44

P.A. To Judge

Santhosh Mani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Mani 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

Chinnamma Vs State of Kerala

P.Balu Swamy Vs State of Kerala

Thajib Vs State of Kerala

Chitharanjan V.K. Vs the State of Kerala

Pravin Kumar B. Vs Nazeer V.K.

Venugopal Vs Tomy K.P.