Allowed

Parasuram v. B.Chandrasekharan Unnithan

Kerala HC15 Feb 2016Crl.MC/562/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, an accused in a cheating and breach of contract case involving disputed SMS messaging contracts, holding the matter to be essentially civil in nature.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. was allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.247/2014 based on Annexure VIII final report are quashed.

Parasuram Vs B.Chandrasekharan Unnithan — 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

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/26TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 562 of 2015

¶6

CC 247/2014 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. CRIME NO. 386/2009 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

PARASURAM, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.REGHUNANDANAN THAMPI, TC 36/564, POURNAMI, PALKULNAGARA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.R.B.RAJESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

1. B.CHANDRASEKHARAN UNNITHAN, OFFICE SECRETARY, KPCC OFFICE, INDIRA BHAVAN, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.P.LALY @ LALY VINCENT R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 562 of 2015

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE-I.	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23/6/2009.
ANNEXURE-II.	TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 26/6/2009 IN CRIME NO.386/2009 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE-III.	TRUE COPY OF THE U.N.REPORT DATED 21/5/2013.
ANNEXURE-IV.	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 8/4/2009.
ANNEXURE-V.	TRUE COPIES OF THE PRINT OUTS SHOWING THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPANY WITH “ARTZSOURCE INDIA”, IN RESPECT OF SENDING OF SMS.
ANNEXURE-VI.	TRUE COPIES OF THE PRINT OUTS SHOWING THE MOBILE NUMBERSTO WHICH THE SMS HAVE BEEN SENT.
ANNEXURE-VII.	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 27/6/2014.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL ---------------------------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶27

CRL.M.C. No. 562 of 2015

¶28

............................................................... Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2016

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The petitioner is the accused in CC.No.247/2014 of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which has arisen from Crime No.386/2009 of Museum Police Station alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶32

The allegation against the petitioner is that he, with an intention of cheating and defrauding CW1, who was functioning as Secretary of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, committed breach of contract, and violated the terms of contract between them. The work of sending SMS messages containing the election symbol of the Congress Party to the mobile numbers of the voters was entrusted to the petitioner. It has come out that the petitioner sent around one crore messages. There were disputes between the parties to effect that the election symbol of the Congress Party in those messages was not clear. The allegation

¶33

is that he has violated the terms of the contract, thereby committed breach of contract and has defaulted and cheated

¶34

CRL.M.C. No. 562 of 2015 -2-

¶35

CW1 for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-.

¶36

On hearing either sides, it has come out that, essentially the matter is more or less civil in nature; at the most, it can only be a breach of contract. The allegations against the petitioner will not invite any criminal liability and therefore, the continuing prosecution proceedings in C.C.No.247/2014 are quite unnecessary. Of course, the defacto complainant or CW1 as the case may be, can have recourse to civil remedies in the matter.

¶37

With the said observations, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.247/2014 based on Annexure VIII final report in Crime No.386/2009 of the Museum Police Station are hereby quashed.

¶38

B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶39

SKV

Parasuram v. B.Chandrasekharan Unnithan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parasuram v. B.Chandrasekharan Unnithan

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

Risvi Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

Saji Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

Bava @ Rafeek Vs State of Kerala

Binu Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar K K Vs State of Kerala

M.T.P.Mohammed Vs the Station House Officer, Cheemeni Police Station