Dismissed

Udayakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2021Crl.MC/1940/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the police final report in a cheating case alleging property misrepresentation. The High Court rejected the plea that lack of initial cheating intent warranted quashing, holding that the statements revealed allegations of deceptive measures sufficient to invoke criminal liability, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the final report under Section 482 Cr.PC was dismissed.

Udayakumar Vs 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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1940 OF 2017

¶6

[AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC 4328/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL

¶7

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA]

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:

¶9

1 UDAYAKUMAR

¶10

AGED 48 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVAN,KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, EDATHURUTHI VILLAGE,DESOM, THRISSUR.

¶11

2 SHAIKH JEMS

¶12

AGED 43 YEARS S/O.KUNHAMMU, PAREDATH HOUSE,VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶17

2 KOCHUVARKEY S/O.CHAKKAPPAN, PATTATHIL HOUSE, EAST KODALY DESOM, VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE,THRISSUR-680 699.

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

R1 BY SHRI.SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHNAN, PP

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 08.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.MC.No.1940 of 2017 2

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in

¶24

C.C.No.4328/2015 on the file of the Judicial First

¶25

class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. The said calendar case arises from Crime No.731/2015 of Kodakara Police

¶26

Station which was registered on the basis of a

¶27

complaint submitted by the 2^nd respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sections 406,417,418,429 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶28

The allegation against the accused is that, they are real estate agents who cheated the daughter and son-in-law of the de facto complainant by selling a property comprised in Survey No.137/1 and 138/1 of Muriyad village by making them believe that the property is a garden land. According to the de facto complainant, when they came to the premises and inspected the property, the petitioners created an impression that aforesaid property is a garden land.

¶29

In order to make them believe that it was a garden

¶30

CRL.MC.No.1940 of 2017 3

¶31

land, the accused planted coconut tree stumps in the property so as to appear that it was a garden land. However, later, when the de facto complainant and sonin-law approached the revenue authorities for remitting the tax, it was informed that, the said property is a paddy land. The aforesaid complaint was submitted in such circumstances and after completing the investigation thereon, police filed Annexure-A3 final report. This Crl.M.C. is filed seeking to quash the aforesaid final report.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent. Even though notice was issued to the 2^nd respondent, there is no appearance for him.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that, the averments contained in Annexure-A3 final report would not indicate that the petitioner was having an intention to cheat the de facto complainant

¶34

CRL.MC.No.1940 of 2017 4

¶35

or his daughter and son-in-law, right from the

¶36

inception. The property was purchased by them after being satisfied themselves as to the status of the

¶37

property by physically inspecting the same. On the basis of the same, they paid the amount and the property was duly conveyed to them as per Annexure-2 sale deed. In such circumstances, it was pointed out that, as the intention to cheat the de facto complainant was lacking, the offence under Section 420 IPC is not attracted. It was also pointed out that even though the property was purchased on 2.9.2010, the

¶38

complaint was submitted only on 3.7.2015 which is after five years. On this ground also, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to quash the aforesaid proceedings.

¶39

Prosecutor opposes the said contention, by pointing out that, the allegation in the final report and also the

¶40

CRL.MC.No.1940 of 2017 5

¶41

statements of the witnesses would clearly make out a case against the petitioners.

¶42

The only question that arises is as to whether

¶43

the offence under Section 420 is made out or not. It is

¶44

true that, as against the amount paid by the petitioners, the property has been conveyed as

¶45

evidenced by Annexure-A2 sale deed. The main contention of the petitioners is that, the allegations against them would not disclose the existence of an intention to cheat the de facto complainant right from the inception. However, the said contention cannot be accepted as such, in view of the statement of CW1 which is as follows:

¶46

“എെ� ഇേ�ാൾ വായി� േകൾ�ി�ത്. ഞാൻ 2 .7. 2015 തീയതി െവ�ി�ള�ര
േപാലീസിേനാട് പറ� െമാഴിയാണ്. എനി�് േജാലിെയാ�ം ഇ�. 2010 ജ�വരി
മാസ�ിൽ എെ� മകൾ ജീന�ം ഭർ�ാവ് േജാേജാവി�ം വീട് പണി��തിനായി
�ലം അന�ഷി��തി� അവർ പറ�. അവർ ഗൾഫിൽ േജാലി െച�കയായി��.
ഞാൻ പ��ിൽ ക�തായ പരസ��ിെല ന��മായി ബ�െപ�. െവ�ി�ള�രയിൽ
�ിരതാമസ�� െഷ�് െജയിംസ് ബ�െപ�വാ�ം അറിയി�. ഞാൻ െജയിംസിെന
േഫാണിൽ വിളി�ക�ം െകാള�ർ ഭാഗ� ഞ�ൾ�് plot കൾ വി�ന�് ഉെ��ം
പറ�. െജയിംസ് എെ� �ലം കാണി��തിന് െകാ��േപായി. �മാർ 5
ഏ�േറാളം വ�� �ലം േകാ�ൗ�് മതിൽ െക�ി�ിരി�് plot കളായി തിരി�ം

¶47

CRL.MC.No.1940 of 2017 6

¶48

േറാഡ് ടാർ െചയ്�ം മ�ം കാ�ക��ായി. ഇതിൽ എനി� കാണി�ത� േ�ാ�ിൽ
െത�ിെ� കടഭാഗം മാ�ം നില്��ത് ക� ഞാൻ േചാതി�തിൽ ഇവിെട നി�ി��
െത�കൾ ഞ�ൾ �റി�താെണ� പറ� വിശ�സി�ി�. ഗൾഫിൽ നി�ം
നാ�ിെല�ിയ മക�െട�ം മ�മകെൻറ�ം േപരിൽ ഞ�ൾ 5 plot �ലം തീ�വാ�ി.
ഈ �ലം വീ�വ�ാൻ ന� �ലമാെണ�ം, പറ� ആെണ�ം ആണ് ഉദയ�മാ�ം
െജയിം�ം നിഷാ�ം പറ�ി��ത്. ഈ �ല�ളിൽ െത�ിെ� കടഭാഗം െകാ�വ�
എെ� െത�ി�രി�ി��തിനായി മ�ിൽ JC B ഉപേയാഗി�് െവ�െത �ഴി�ി�തായി��.
ആധാരം എ���തി� അവർ തെ� ഏർ�ാട് െച�ാെമ�ം പല സർേവകളിെല �മി
ആെണ�ം, േവെറ�ം േ�ാ�കൾ ഉ�തിനാൽ ആധാരം ഞ�ൾ ശരിയാ�ി എ�തി
തരാെമ�ം എെ� ഇവർ പറ� വിശ�സി�ി� . പി�ീട് മ�ൾ ഗൾഫിൽ േപായ സമയം
ഈ �മി�െട ���ാർ എെ� േപരിൽ എ�തി ത�ക�ം ഞാൻ ഈ �മി�െട നി�തി
അട��തിന് േവ�ി െച� സമയം ഇത് പാടം ആെണ�് അറി�ക�ം െചയ്�.
ഇവർ എെ� പറ� വിശ�സി�ി�ം എെ� മകെള�ം മകെന�ം വീട് വ�ാൻ പ�ിയ
�ലമാെണ�് പറ� െത�ി�രി�ി�ം �ഷി�് അ�േയാജ�മായ �ലം േറാഡ്കൾ
പണി� േ�ാ�്കളായി തിരി�ം ഞ�െള ചതി െച�താണ്.”

¶49

The aforesaid statement would clearly indicate that there is some allegation that some deceptive measures

¶50

have been taken by the accused persons to make it appear the property as a garden land. It contains a specific allegation that, for the purpose of deceiving the defacto complainant, the accused have brought coconut tree stumps into the property and planted there. When inquired, they informed the defacto complainant that, the stumps are remnants of the

¶51

CRL.MC.No.1940 of 2017 7

¶52

coconut trees, which were in the property, were cut and removed by them. The veracity of such allegation can be ascertained only at the time of evidence. For invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC, this

¶53

Court is not expected to interpret or adjudicate on the averments made in the complaint. The power under section 482 of the Cr.PC. can be invoked, only if it is

¶54

shown that, even if the entire allegations contained in the complaint/final report are accepted for its face value, the offence is not made out. In this case, going by the averments of the witnesses as revealed from the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC, I am of the view that, no case is made out for invoking the inherent powers of this court.

¶55

In such circumstances, I find no merit in this Crl.MC and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶56

Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶57

pkk

¶58

CRL.MC.No.1940 of 2017 8

¶59

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1940/2017

¶60

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶61

ANNEXURE A1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE ISSUED BY RM.CO.PROPERTIES LTD FOR MAITHRI GARDENS.
ANNEXURE A2 :	TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2503/2010 DATED 2-9- 2010 OF KALLETTUMKARA SRO.
ANNEXURE A3 :	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.731/2015 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A4 :	TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CRIMINAL MC 1926/15 DATED 15-9-2015 PASSED BY SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR.

Udayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udayakumar 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

Maniboy Vs State of Kerala

Mr.Vinod Mathew Jacob Vs K.I.John

Yahiya a. K. Vs State of Kerala

Shyamlal Vs State of Kerala

Raghavan Nambiar, Vs State of Kerala

P. Anversadath Vs State of Kerala