Allowed

Krishnakumar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2021Crl.MC/1375/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the proceedings of a complaint alleging cheating under Section 420 IPC for reduction of flat area. It held that the complainant's own omission to measure the area before purchase cannot be a ground to fasten criminal liability on the accused.

What did the court decide?

The Crime Misc. Case is allowed and the registered crime along with its further proceedings is quashed.

Krishnakumar Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1375 OF 2017(B)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 659/2016 DATED 08-04-2016 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/o M.G. SIVASANKARA KURUP, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., INDRAPRASTAM, T.C.4/2554 (4), PATTOM -KOWDIAR ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 P.K. SREEDHARAN NAIR P.K.S. NAIR, S/o KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 70, SOUPARNIKA, SAGARAM, MADATHU NADA, MUKKAL P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN -695 004.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. DR.K.P.PRADEEP R2 BY ADV. SMT.T.THASMI R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C.BINEESH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.1375 of 2017

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The person who purchased one of the flats in a multi-storied building came up with a complaint before the Magistrate alleging offence under Section 420 IPC on the ground that there is a reduction of extent of the area covered by the flat. The complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for

¶19

investigation. But in the sale deed, an approximate

¶20

area alone is mentioned. No steps were admittedly taken by the defacto complainant to measure out the area covered by the flat before the execution of the sale deed and its purchase. Omission to conduct proper enquiry on the part of a person which he ought to have been made under ordinary circumstance or any failure thereof cannot be a ground to fasten criminal liability under Section 420 IPC against another person. Hence,

¶21

the crime registered and its further proceedings will

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.1375 of 2017

¶23

¶24

not serve any purpose. The same is liable to be

¶25

quashed. I do so. Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Crl.M.C.No.1375 of 2017

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶34

ANNXEXURE -I	TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 13.11.2016 EXECUTE BETWEEN THE LAND OWNERS AND M/S. NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTION
ANNEXURE-II	TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 13.11.2016
ANNXEXURE-III	TRUE COPY OF AGREMENT DATED 04.09.2008 EXECUTED BETWEEN NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTINS PVT. LTD. AND 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNXEXURE-IV	TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2446/2009 DATED 05.10.2009 EXECUTED BY THE LAND OWNER REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER COMPANY IN FAVOUR OF 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-V	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPTS DATED 03.10.2009 IN RESPECT OF 35.46 CENTS
ANNXEURE-VI	TRUE COPY OF DEED WAS EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT ON 03.02.2010
ANNXEXURE-VII	TRUE COPY OF INDEMNITY BOND DATED 3.2.2010.
ANNXEXURE-VIII	TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 23.01.2012
ANNEXURE-IX	TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.403/2012 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE-X	TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO.1099 OF 2012 FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM.
ANNXEXURE-XI	TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.403/2012 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.1375 of 2017

¶36

¶37

ANNXEXURE-XII TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT/OBJECTION TO RC NO.13/2015 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶38

ANNXEXURE-XIII CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 08.04.2016 IN CMP NO.659 OF 2016 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC 554/2016 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶39

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL

¶40

// TRUE COPY //

¶41

P.A. TO JUDGE

Krishnakumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnakumar v. the 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

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Dr. Ria Ann Thomas

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Prabha Thomas

Asokan P.K Vs State of Kerala

Chandrasekharan Nair Vs State of Kerala

John Britas Vs Abdul Salam

G. Ramachandran Achari Vs the State of Kerala