The Court examined a criminal complaint regarding a building construction dispute. It held that the matter was purely civil and breach of contract alone does not constitute cheating under IPC 415.
The FIR and Final Report alleged under Section 420 IPC were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.3633 OF 2020(D)
CRIME NO.629/2018 OF Cherthala Police Station , Alappuzha
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SUNILKUMAR T.T. AGED 49 YEARS S/O THANKAPPAN,VARIYATHVELI, ERAMALLUR.P.O, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS. SMT.K.P.SANTHI SMT.TARA PREM
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 SHEREEF, AGED 56 YEARS S/O KOCHUNNI,VADAKKE POPPALLIL, VAYALAR.P.O, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA-688536.
R1 BY ADV.SMT.V.SREEJA, PUBLILC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.3633 OF 2020(D)
2
ORDER
In the year 2016, an agreement entered into between the defacto complainant and the accused for constructing a building. It was completed on 10.09.2017. Some extensions were also made in the building based on the request made by the defacto complainant. Some dispute had
arisen at the time of final settlement regarding the extension made. The accused thereon issued a lawyer notice to the defacto complainant. On receipt of the lawyer notice, the defacto complainant filed a civil suit against the accused before the Sub Court concerned. The accused also filed another
suit in the same court against the defacto complainant. In the meanwhile, the accused
also caused to register Annexure I FIR alleging
offence under Section 420 IPC. Final report (Annexure II) was also submitted for the said
offence. The dispute involved is of civil nature. Civil liability alone can be fastened
Crl.MC.No.3633 OF 2020(D)
between the parties. Breach of a contractual obligation alone is not sufficient to constitute cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC. Both the FIR and the final report
hence quashed.
The Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
Crl.MC.No.3633 OF 2020(D)
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| ANNEXURE | I TRUE COPY OF THE OF 2018 OF CHERT |
FIR IN CRIME NO.629 HALA POLICE STATION. |
|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE | II TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME NO.629 OF POLICE STATION. |
FINAL REPORT IN 2018 OF CHERTHALA |
| ANNEXURE | III TRUE COPY OF THE 29.7.2016 EXECUT AND 2ND RESPONDE |
AGREEMENT DATED ED BETWEEN PETITIONER NT |
| ANNEXURE | IV TRUE COPY OF THE 5.2.2018 SEND BY |
LAWYER NOTICE DATED THE PETITIONER |
| ANNEXURE | V TRUE COPY OF THE 15.2.2018 ISSUED RESPONDENT |
REPLY NOTICE DATED BY THE 2ND |
| ANNEXURE | VI TRUE COPY OF THE OF 2018 FILED BE COURT,CHERTHALA. |
PLAINT IN O.S.NO.7 FORE SUB |
| ANNEXURE | VII TRUE COPY OF O.S BEFORE THE SUB C |
.NO.10 OF 2018 FLED OURT,CHERTHALA. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a dispute arising from breach of a contractual obligation regarding building construction constitutes cheating under Section 415 IPC.
Whether the registration of an FIR alleging Section 420 IPC is maintainable in a purely civil dispute involving civil liability.
Whether the Final Report submitted in FIR No. 629 of 2018 should be quashed given the civil nature of the dispute.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunilkumar T.T.
State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Shereef
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
