Allowed

Zacharias Poomkudy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jan 2016Crl.MC/175/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings in a complaint alleging cheating and forgery against the petitioner. Finding the petitioner had no role in the misrepresentation of a motorcycle sale at a different branch, which was handled by others, the Court discharged him. The Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C.No.207 of 2014 against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

Zacharias Poomkudy Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/8TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 175 of 2015 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 207/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PEERUMEDU

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

ZACHARIAS POOMKUDY, S/O.AUGUSTHY, AGED 37 YEARS, POOMKUDY HOUSE, N.H.47, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶10

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

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2. SHEEBA, W/O.PAL RAJ,

¶14

PARVATHY BHAVAN, GLENMERY KARA, PEERMADE VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 531.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. MAYA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 175 of 2015 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEX-I. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.207/2014 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PEERMADE.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶28

==================== CRL.M.C. No.175 of 2015

¶29

==================== Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2016

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in C.C.No.207 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Peermade, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 465 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

¶32

The petitioner is allegedly the proprietor of M/s.Poomkudy Force dealing in motorbikes. The case before the court below is as a result of a private complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent as complainant. It is the case of the complainant that she had approached the petitioner for purchasing a Trax Cruiser Long 5+D. Then she was allegedly informed that the petitioner had another institution named Poomkudy Force at Kattappana, from where she

¶33

CRL.M.C.No.175 of 2015 -: 2 :-

¶34

could get the said vehicle of her choice. Accordingly, she approached A2 and A3 at Poomkudy Force, Kattappana and requested for such a vehicle. It is alleged that they, by misrepresenting that the vehicle that was being sold to the complainant was of the specification demanded by her, sold a different vehicle by obtaining an amount of ₹6,09,000/from the complainant. According to the complainant, she sustained a wrongful loss of ₹1,10,000/- on account of such acts of the petitioner and the other accused.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for the 2^nd respondent.

¶36

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the private complaint, it could be seen that the petitioner had no role in the incident, even if the incident as such is admitted. When the complainant had allegedly approached the petitioner, what he had allegedly done was that he represented to the complainant that he had an institution named Poomkudy Force at Kattappana,

¶37

CRL.M.C.No.175 of 2015 -: 3 :-

¶38

from where also she could purchase the vehicle. He had directed her to the said institution at Kattappana. Apart from that he had no role in the incident. The specific case of the complainant is that A2 and A3 had misrepresented with regard to the make of the vehicle and they had supplied the vehicle in question to her by misrepresenting that the said vehicle was of the choice forwarded by her, thereby she sustained a wrongful loss of ₹1,10,000/-. At any stretch of imagination, the petitioner cannot be fastened with any criminal liability with regard to the offences alleged. He had never supplied the vehicle; whereas he had directed her to purchase such a vehicle from the institution at Kattappana. Matters being so, there is no reason for taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner herein and therefore, all further proceedings in C.C.No.207 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Peermade, as against the petitioner, can be quashed.

¶39

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further

¶40

CRL.M.C.No.175 of 2015 -: 4 :-

¶41

proceedings in C.C.No.207 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Peermade, as against the

¶42

petitioner, are hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶44

DSV/29/1/16

¶45

//True copy//

¶46

P.A.to Judge

Zacharias Poomkudy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zacharias Poomkudy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar E.R Vs State of Kerala

Saneer Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala

Manafudeen Vs State of Kerala

Riyas.M.R Vs State of Kerala