Allowed

Abdul Muthalib P.M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jun 2018Crl.MC/2836/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioner's application to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly cheating the complainant by failing to repay a loan. The court held that the dispute was purely civil in nature and the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in CC 144 of 2018 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur, are quashed.

Abdul Muthalib P.M. Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | 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 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2836 of 2018

¶6

IN CC 144/2018 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, KANNUR CRIME NO. 84/2018 OF BALIAPATTAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :-

¶8

ABDUL MUTHALIB P.M. S/O. ABDU K, AGED 47 YEARS, PARAPPIL MEETHALE PURAYIL HOUSE, PUZHATHI, CHIRAKKAL POST, KANNUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ASHIS

¶10

SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO/COMPLAINANT :-

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶14

2. MUNEER C H, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 39 YEARS, CHERIYAANDEELAKATH HOUSE, AROLI P.O, PAPPINISSERI, BALIAPATTAM, KANNUR - 670 111.

¶15

R1 BY SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 2836 of 2018 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :-

¶20

ANNEXURE I	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NUMBER 84 OF 2018 OF BALIAPATTAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE II	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NUMBER 84 OF 2018 OF BALIAPATTAM POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS CC 144 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF JFCM-II, KANNUR.
ANNEXURE III	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES :- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

SMA

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶26

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶27

Crl. M.C. No. 2836 of 2018

¶28

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶29

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2018

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioner is the accused in CC 144 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kannur. The second respondent is the informant. He filed Annexure A1 complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police Baliapattam alleging that the petitioner failed to repay the amount of Rs.16,50,000/(Rupees Sixteen lakh and fifty thousand only) he had borrowed from him and thus cheated him. The police registered the case for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and after the investigation filed a final report for the same offences. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the dispute is purely of a civil nature.

¶32

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on the second respondent complainant he has not turned up.

¶33

I have perused the Annexure A1 the First Information Statement filed by the second respondent before the

¶34

Crl. M.C. No. 2836 of 2018 -:2:-

¶35

police. The only allegation is that the petitioner failed to repay the money he had borrowed from the second respondent. It does not disclose commission of any offence. It was wrong on the part of Station House Officer to register the case and file final report stating that the petitioner committed the offences under Section 406 and 420 IPC. The proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶36

In the result this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in CC 144 of 2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur are quashed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

PA TO JUDGE

¶41

SMA

Abdul Muthalib P.M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Muthalib P.M. 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

Muhammed Ali Vs State of Kerala

Johnson George Vs State of Kerala

Ansil Vs State of Kerala

Renji Mathew Vs Mariyamma Varghese

Satheeshan Vs the State of Kerala

Asish Vs State of Kerala