This judgment dismisses a criminal revision petition challenging the rejection of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the alleged forgery of bank loan documents and non-repayment constituted only civil liability, not cheating.
The revision petition was dismissed.
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
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 17TH ASWINA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.149 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 826/2016 DATED 26-07-2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , SASTHAMCOTTA
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
ANANTHARAJ, S/O.SOMAN, AGED 37 YEARS,
SOMALAYAM, PUTHUPILAKKATTU PADINJARU, PORUVAZHY.P.O, SATHAMCOTTATH, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
3 G.NARAYANAN, MAHESH BHAVANAM, POOYAPPALLY.P.O., KOLLAM (FROM CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKAD.P.O), SASTHAMCOTTAH, KOLLAM-690520
4 SMT.RETHNAMMA, MAHESH BHAVANAM, POOYAPPALLY.P.O. KOLLAM(FROM CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKAD.P.O., SATHAMCOTTAH, KOLLAM 690520
R2-4 BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU R2-4 BY ADV. SMT.S.SEETHA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.SRI.E.C.BINEESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.149 OF 2020 2
ORDER
A complaint was submitted alleging offence under Sections 418 and 420 r/w Section 34 IPC and the learned Magistrate at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 202 Cr.P.C. found that there is no ground to issue process. Hence complaint was rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complainant remained absent continuously without giving any statement. The same is under challenge in revision.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.149 OF 2020 3
by the defacto complainant. But the loan amount was not repaid inspite of receipt of retirement benefit by one of the accused in the year 2011 and receipt of an amount of Rs.30,000/- by way of monthly pension. What is involved is only a civil liability, even going by the allegation raised in the complaint. Defacto complainant had voluntarily offered his property for securing the loan facility. The default on the part of the principal in repaying the loan amount may not be sufficient to attract an offence of cheating under Sections 420 or 418
IPC. Hence there is no reason for exercising revisional power.
Revision fails, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether non-payment of a bank loan with security offer constitutes cheque-dishonour or cheating offences.
Whether revision was necessary when the complainant was absent and no grounds existed for process issuance.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
ANANTHARAJ
STATE OF KERALA
HARIKUMAR
G.NARAYANAN
RETHNAMMA
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
