Allowed

Abdul Hakkem P.V v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2019Crl.MC/1813/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings for cheating under Section 420 IPC arising from failure to pay mobile postpaid bills. The court held the dispute was civil in nature and lacked dishonest intent required for the offence, allowing the petition to quash proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings under C.C.No.1518/2008 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, quashed.

Abdul Hakkem P.V Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1813 of 2014

¶6

C.C.NO.1518/2008 of ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN CC 1518/2008 OF ACJM:

¶8

ABDUL HAKKEM P.V., 39/2223, F-HAR BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, NEAR QRS, KOCHI, HAVING RESIDENCE AT FLAT NO.9B, TOCH, TOC-H ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.T.A.JOY

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT IN CC 1518/2008:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION.

¶12

2 M/S BHARATE AIRTEL LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTE TELECOM S.L. AVENUE, MARADU P.O., KUNANNOOR, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY POA.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 1813 of 2014 : 2 :

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner the sole accused in C.C.No.1518/2008 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam seeks to quash Annexure 1 final report submitted by Ernakulam Town South Police Station in Crime No.106/2007 before that court.

¶19

The prosecution case as against the petitioner as per Annexure 1 report is that, he, after having obtained a mobile postpaid connection in his name, failed to discharge his liability for user charges for a period of 5 months from 21.7.2006 to 21.11.2006. The allegation is that the petitioner incurred a gross monetary liability of 97,678.5/- for the period and after making a part payment of 10,580/-, he kept the balance in arrears. The default on the part of the petitioner, according to the prosecution, amounts to an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

¶20

The petitioner's case is that the transaction in

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 1813 of 2014 : 3 :

¶22

question is based on an agreement between the parties and therefore the alleged liability under the transaction is purely of civil nature. In as much as what is made out is only a civil liability out of the transaction in question, the petitioner seeks the consequential criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1518/2008 pursuant to the Annexure 1 final report, to be quashed.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The 2^nd respondent, the de facto complainant did not appear inspite of service of notice on it.

¶24

On marshaling the materials on record, I find that

¶25

the transaction involved as between the parties is one arising out of a civil dispute. The purported liability of the petitioner seems to have arisen from breach of promise or agreement other than a breach followed by any dishonest intention to cheat the de facto complainant. Mere breach of trust or agreement will not by itself amount to a criminal offence under Section 420 IPC. In order to make out an offence under Section 420, the prosecution has to show that the dishonest intention to cheat existed at the time when the alleged

¶26

Crl.MC.No. 1813 of 2014 : 4 :

¶27

promise in question was made. That legal proposition does not match the materials on record as well as the allegations made out through the Annexure 1 report. Consequently being satisfied that what is involved in the present case is one of civil dispute between parties, I hold that this seems to be a fit case where the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam requires to be quashed.

¶28

In the result, Crl.M.C.No.1813/2014 is allowed quashing the entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.1518/2008 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,

¶29

Ernakulam.

¶30

Sd/- T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

¶33

Crl.MC.No. 1813 of 2014 : 5 :

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

¶36

ANNEXURE 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 1518/08 OF ACJM, ERNAKULAM IN CRIME NO.106/07 OF ET SOUTH POLICE STATION.

¶37

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

Abdul Hakkem P.V v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hakkem P.V 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

Aparna Vs Kannan @ Vishnu

Rajeev Kumar Vs K.R.Vijayakumari Ammal

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

Ranganathan Vs State of Kerala

P.G.Krishnan @ Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan S Vs Suganthi S