Allowed

Madhava Das v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jul 2018Crl.MC/197/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against petitioners 2 to 4. The court held that these accused were not involved in transactions prior to the agreement and thus Section 420 IPC did not attract against them. Consequently, no criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) existed, warranting quashing of their charges.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in CC No. 1153 of 2015 quashed so far as petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned.

Madhava Das Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 197 of 2018

¶6

CC 1153/2015 of J.M.F.C., PALA

¶7

CRIME NO. 2469/2014 OF PALA POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 2 TO 5

¶9

1 MADHAVA DAS S/O. MADHAVA MENON, KRISHNA LEELA HOUSE, NORTH BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

2 LEELA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. KRISHNAN KUTTY NAIR, KRISHNA LEELA HOUSE, NORTH BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

3 PUSHA LATHA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. MADHAVA DAS, KRISHNA LEELA HOUSE, NORTH BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

4 HEENA VERMA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. RANJITH KUMAR, KRISHNA LEELA HOUSE, NORTH BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶14

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶16

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031, (CRIME NO. 2469/2014 OF PALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT)

¶17

2. GEORGE KUTTY ABRAHAM, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ABRAHAM, ANITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, LALAM KARA, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶18

R1 BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 197 of 2018

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS:

¶23

ANNEXURE-I COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 2469/2014 OF PALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM

¶24

RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

bka/-

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶29

-------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 197 of 2018

¶30

Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2018

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶33

Petitioners are accused 2 to 5 in CC No. 1153 of 2015

¶34

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. They are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 406 & 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the facts of the case do not attract the offences so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on the second respondent on whose information the case was registered, he has not entered appearance.

¶36

The first accused was managing partner of a firm by

¶37

name Prestige Polymer Products at Kozhikode. The petitioners were its other partners. The firm gave an

¶38

..2..

¶39

Crl.M.C. No. 197 of 2018

¶40

advertisement for appointment of stockists and distributors in various districts in Kerala. The second respondent contacted the first accused on phone. They had a discussion at Kozhikode. After two days, the first accused and the first petitioner visited the go-down of the second respondent at Pala. Thereafter, on 10.07.2014, the firm and the second respondent entered into an agreement. The firm received Rs.16,000/- from the second respondent. The second respondent had a discussion with the first accused and the petitioners on the very same day. Thereafter, the firm received Rs.13,16,000/- from the second respondent. The firm promised to send the goods to the go-down of the second petitioner at Pala. But, that was not done. After about four months, the firm promised to pay back the amount. On 03.12.2014, it remitted Rs.3,00,000/- into the account of the second respondent. It did not pay the balance amount. These are the allegations in the First Information Statement.

¶41

..3..

¶42

Crl.M.C. No. 197 of 2018

¶43

The First Information Statement shows that the second respondent met petitioners 2 to 4 only after the second respondent entered into the agreement with the first accused and the first petitioner. So, petitioners 2 to 4 had no role at the initial stage before the agreement was entered into. So far as they are concerned, Section 420 IPC is not attracted as they cannot be said to have induced the second respondent to pay the money. But, the case of the first petitioner stands on a different footing. He had taken part in the transaction which took place before the agreement was entered into.

¶44

After the amount was paid to the firm, the property became the property of the firm. There is no question of criminal breach of trust. So, Section 406 IPC is not attracted. Thus, petitioners 2 to 4 cannot be said to have committed any of the offences. The proceedings as against them are liable to be quashed. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in part. The

¶45

Crl.M.C. No. 197 of 2018

¶46

..4..

¶47

proceedings in CC No. 1153 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala are quashed so far as petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶50

bka/18.07.2018

Madhava Das v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhava Das 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

A. John Vs J. Jacob

Suresh.K Vs State of Kerala

Akhil K.G Vs State of Kerala

Ali Askar. K @ Askar Vs State of Kerala

Basheer.K. Vs State of Kerala

Mohandas Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, E.T North Police Station