Allowed

Chinna S.Karippai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2019Crl.MC/730/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam bench, in a criminal miscellaneous petition, invoked its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The court determined the allegations were rooted in a civil dispute regarding a property sale and recovery, lacking intent to deceive, and dismissed the criminal charges.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings pending against the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 & 3 in CC No. 885/2015 are quashed.

Chinna S.Karippai Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 730 of 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 887/2015 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ALUVA

¶7

CRIME NO. 333/2014 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 2 AND 3 :

¶9

1 CHINNA S.KARIPPAI, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.K.P.SUJATHAN, RESIDING AT 50/213-A (NEW NO.37/760, MANIMALA ROAD P.O., EDAPPALLY, KOCHI - 682 024.

¶10

2 HEERA K.S., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.SUNISH V.H., RESIDING AT 50/213-A (NEW NO.37/760, MANIMALA ROAD P.O., EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.C.U.SANGEETH SMT.AMRITA JAYARAM SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS :

¶13

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

¶14

2 PRAVEEN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SASEENDRAN, NJARATHARA HOUSE, CHANDRATHIL ROAD, PADIVATTOM - 682 024.

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 730 of 2016

¶16

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND

¶18

R2 BY ADVS.MS.JENCY SUSAN JOSE SMT.M.S.LETHA SRI.K.R.VINOD SRI.V.SRI NATH

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 730 of 2016

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are accused in Crime

¶24

No.333/2014 of Elamakkara Police Station, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 408,120 (b) r/w.34 of the IPC.

¶25

According to the counsel for the

¶26

petitioners, they are falsely implicated and arrayed as 2^nd and 3^rd accused in the above crime. The 2^nd respondent again tried to harass these petitioners by filing OS.No.1438/2013. The learned Magistrate, after proper appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case, rightly dismissed the claim against these petitioners. Aggrieved by the above order with purposeful intention to harass the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent filed the above crime case.

¶27

Crl.MC.No. 730 of 2016

¶28

¶29

The allegation is that the first petitioner's

¶30

husband had some financial transactions with the de facto complainant. The matter came to the knowledge of the petitioners only when the de facto complainant trespassed into the house of the petitioners and threatened the lives and property of the petitioners using goondas and henchmen. The matter was immediately informed to the police and due to the timely intervention of the police, the de facto complainant and his henchmen left the scene. Annexure A1 is the true copy of the statement on 17.12.2013 filed by the first respondent in WP(C).No.29968/2013. The petitioners therefore impleaded the de facto complainant as the 15^th respondent in the above said Writ OP. An interim order of police protection was granted by this Court and true copy dated 17.12.2013 is produced as Annexure-A2. Annexure-A3 is the true copy of the order dated

¶31

Crl.MC.No. 730 of 2016

¶32

¶33

27.12.2013 of the State Human Rights Commission. The de facto complainant again tried to harass the petitioners by filing O.S.No.1438/2013, alleging that the petitioners owe a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the de facto complainant. The suit was filed without any documentary evidence. So it was also dismissed, as the reference to Annexure A4.

¶34

Now the case of the petitioners is that after dismissal of the original suit, the de facto complainant lodged FIR Case No.333/2014 before the Elamakkara Police Station alleging offences under Sections 420, 406, 408, 120(b) read with 34 IPC. The certified copy of the FIR dated 08.06.2014 of Elamakkara Police Station is produced and marked as Annexure-A5. During the pendency of the same, the petitioners filed Crl.M.C.No.4711/2015 to quash the FIR and the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the investigation is over and the final report has been

¶35

Crl.MC.No. 730 of 2016

¶36

¶37

filed. True copy of the final report is produced and marked as Annexure A6. According to the petitioners, there was no such incident happened in this regard in which the petitioners were involved directly or indirectly as alleged in the Annexure A6 final report. The petitioners were falsely implicated at the instance of the de facto complainant. The allegations in Annexure A6 final report do not constitute the offence of cheating and only create a case for damages in relation to specific performance. Further Annexure A6 final report is a pure civil dispute, which is sought to be framed as a criminal case on an experimental basis. Therefore, the petitioners seeks for quashing Annexure A6 final report in CC.No.887/2015 (Crime No.333/2014) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva as against the petitioners. Annexure A1 is the copy of the statement dated 17.12.2013 filed by the first respondent in

¶38

Crl.MC.No. 730 of 2016

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C)No.29968/2013. Annexure A2 is the order in the

¶41

above OP wherein the police protection was given to the petitioner herein. Annexure A3 is the true copy of the order from the Kerala State Human Rights Commission dated 27.12.2013. The petitioners before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission is the petitioners herein. Annexure A4 is the copy of the judgment in OS.No.1438/2013, a suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent against the petitioners. The said suit was dismissed on 16.12.2014. The suit is decreed against the first defendant alone and not against the petitioners, which was pronounced on 16.12.2014. The FIR was lodged on 03.06.2013. The final report would show that accused Nos.1 to 4 with an intention to cause damages to the de facto complainant entered into an agreement for the sale of 4 cents of property for Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. But the petitioners have not executed the sale deed, even after

¶42

Crl.MC.No. 730 of 2016

¶43

¶44

the receipt of Rs.5 lakhs. In fact charge sheet was laid down under Sections 420, 406, 408, and 120(b) r/w.34 of the IPC. From the charge sheet, the nature of the case would reveal that the dispute is only a civil nature. There is no evidence to prove that the petitioners had any intention to deceive the de facto complainant. Moreover, there are several complaints against the de facto complainant and the petitioners have obtained police protection also. Even the suit for recovery of money was filed as per Annexure A2 stating that the de facto complainant has paid Rs.5 lakhs to the first defendant for the sale of 4.350 cents, the suit was filed in the year 2013. After the institution of the civil suit, the de facto complainant filed criminal complaint against the petitioners on the same set of facts. The civil suit was disposed on 16.12.2014 also finding that the petitioners are not liable for the payment of the amount to the de facto complainant.

¶45

Crl.MC.No. 730 of 2016

¶46

¶47

Therefore, the charge as levelled against the petitioners will not stand. There is no ground to proceed against the petitioner as per the charge sheet as cited above. In fact, the dealings would reveal that it is purely a civil dispute.

¶48

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings pending against the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 & 3 in CC.No.887/2015 (Crime No.333/2014) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II is hereby quashed.

¶49

In the result, this Crl.M.C.is allowed.

¶50

Sd/- ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE

¶51

RKM

¶52

The case number “C.C.No.887/2015” occurring in the 25^th line of the 4^th paragraph in page 6 and in the operative portion of the final order dated 20.02.2019 in

¶53

Crl.MC.No. 730 of 2016

¶54

¶55

Crl.M.C.No.730/2016 is corrected and substituted as “C.C.No.885/2015”, as per order dated 25.10.2021 in Crl.M.A.No.1/2021 in Crl.M.C.No.730/2016.

¶56

Sd/Deputy Registrar

¶57

Crl.MC.No. 730 of 2016

¶58

¶59

APPENDIX

¶60

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶61

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 17.12.2013 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) 29968/2013 DATED 17.12.2013. ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2013 OF THE STATE HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION. ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2014 IN O.S.1438/2013. ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, ALUVA. ANNEXURE A6 THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, ALUVA

Chinna S.Karippai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinna S.Karippai 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

Union Bank of India Vs State of Kerala

Sahir Vs State of Kerala

Subbayyan Vs State of Kerala

Ahammed Vs State of Kerala

K.Sadasivan Vs Immanuel Aviation and Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd.

R.Jaikrishnan@Jaikrishnan Nair. Rr, Vs State of Kerala