Allowed

Sathiyakumar v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/3225/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition challenging the dismissal of a discharge application, the High Court of Kerala held that the underlying dispute is civil in nature and does not attract cheating under IPC Section 418. The court allowed the petition, quashed the framing order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; order impugned setting aside directions for framing charges; matter remitted to court below to dispose afresh.

Sathiyakumar Vs State of Kerala & Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3225 of 2009 ( )

¶6

CC 1122/2007 of J.M.F.C.,KATTAKADA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

SATHIYAKUMAR, S/O.CHAKRAPANI, AMBIKA BHAVAN, KOZHOOTTU, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶11

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

¶12

LEELA ANTONY, W/O.ANTONY, BINU NIVAS, NEDUMKUZHI, CHEVALLOOR MURI,, VILAPPIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI C K PRASAD R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P. No.3225 of 2009

¶18

¶19

Dated this the 25^th day of October 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The accused in C.C.No.1122 of 2007 on the files of

¶22

the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kattakada filed this revision petition challenging the order passed by the court below dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as

¶25

follows:

¶26

On 22.12.2006, the revision petitioner executed an

¶27

Crl.R.P.3225/2009

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

agreement for sale with the de-facto complainant and

¶30

purchased a Maruti Omni van bearing KL 01 A/9088 from him for Rs.50,000/- on condition that the petitioner would repay the balance of C.C. amount. The revision petitioner remitted the C.C. amount of nearly Rs.43,560/-. Thereafter, he defaulted payment of the C.C. amount. It was further alleged that the revision petitioner used the said vehicle without paying the insurance amount. The offences alleged are the offences under Sections 418 I.P.C. and 146 I.P.C. read with Section 196 of the Motor vehicles Act (for short 'the M.V. Act).

¶31

On the said allegation, a complaint was filed by the de-facto complainant before the court. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police for

¶32

Crl.R.P.3225/2009

¶33

: 3 :

¶34

investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the above crime was registered in

¶35

Balaramapuram police station. Thereafter, the case records were transmitted to Vilappilsala police station, as the offence alleged was committed within the jurisdiction of that police station, wherein the crime was re-registered as Crime No.282/2006 of Vilappilsala Police Station.

¶36

After the appearance of the revision petitioner

¶37

before the court, both sides were heard. The court below

¶38

also perused the police report and the documents submitted along with the police report. Thereafter, the court below passed the order impugned directing to frame charge against the revision petitioner for offences punishable under Section 418 Cr.P.C. and Section 146 read

¶39

Crl.R.P.3225/2009

¶40

: 4 :

¶41

with 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court below

¶42

found that there was no material for framing charge for the offence under section 420 I.P.C.

¶43

In this case, there is no allegation or material to indicate that the revision petitioner had any intention to deceive the de-facto complainant at the inception of the transaction to attract the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 I.P.C. Therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the offence under Section 418 I.P.C. is attracted in this

¶44

case. Having gone through the relevant inputs, it appears that the dispute involved in this case is civil in nature. The above aspects were not considered by the court below while passing the order impugned and in the said circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the order

Crl.R.P.3225/2009

: 5 :

impugned.

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, setting aside the order impugned and the matter is remitted to the court below to consider and dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law, in the light of the

¶49

observations in this order.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶52

dl/26.10..2016

¶53

// True Copy //

¶54

PA to Judge

Sathiyakumar v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathiyakumar v. State of Kerala & Anr.

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

Sobhana Vs State of Kerala and Another

Parameswaran Vs State of Kerala

Kandambeth Chandran Vs Ibrahim @ Ibrahimkutty V.V.

Baby @Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Ambu T. Vs Kerala State

N.Rajan Vs State of Kerala