Allowed

Fathimath Fasseena v. Thalayantakath Abdul Kareem

Kerala HC26 Mar 2021Crl.MC/3249/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition to quash the final report filed against petitioner Accused No. 4 and Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 5. The Court held that based on the facts of the alleged cheating agreement for sale, criminal liability could not be extended. Consequently, the final report registered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. under IPC 420 was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Final report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging offence under Section 420 IPC is quashed against petitioner and accused Nos. 2, 3, and 5.

Fathimath Fasseena Vs Thalayantakath Abdul Kareem — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.MC.No.3249 OF 2016(E) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶6

Crl.MC.No.3249 OF 2016(E)

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 408/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, TALIPARAMBA

¶8

CRIME NO.740/2014 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

¶10

FATHIMATH FASSEENA

¶11

AGED 19 YEARS, D/O. ABOOBACKER, RESIDING AT HIDAYATH NAGAR,TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SMT.O.V.BINDU

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS & STATE:

¶14

1 THALAYANTAKATH ABDUL KHAREEM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER,KUTTIYERI AMSOM, KANHIRANGAD,KANHIRANGAD P.O., TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR DISTRICT-670142.

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA (CRIME NO. 740/2014, S.I OF POLICE TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION) REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. KOCHI - 682 031

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No.3249 OF 2016(E) 2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The FIR and the final report submitted as against accused No.4 sought to be quashed on the ground that even going by the allegation no

¶22

criminal liability can be extended. The crime was registered based on reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging offence under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is in connection with execution of an agreement for sale by the accused No.1 in favour of defacto complainant with respect

¶23

to his property which was earlier sold to one Manu George Mathew and Prince Kuruvila in the year 2007, from whom the accused No.4 purchased the property through her father, the accused No.5. She was at

¶24

that time a minor. The accused Nos.2 to 5 were roped in for the offence under Section 420 IPC by filing a final report without any valid reason. Hence, the final report is hereby quashed not only against the petitioner herein, accused No.4 but

¶25

Crl.MC.No.3249 OF 2016(E) 3

¶26

also against accused Nos.2,3 and 5. Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

Crl.MC.No.3249 OF 2016(E) 4

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

¶34

ANNEXURE 1	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS C.M.P.NO.3936/2014 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TALIPARAMBA
ANNEXURE II	A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 24.5.2014 IN CRIME NO.740/2014 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE III	A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2774/2007 OF S.R.O MATHAMANGALAM DATED 19.11.2007
ANNEXURE IV	A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.553/2014 OF SRO MATHAMANGALAM DATED 31.3.2014
ANNEXURE V	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.5082/2014 DATED 13.10.2015
ANNEXURE VI	A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.740/2014 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION.

¶35

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:NIL

¶36

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Fathimath Fasseena v. Thalayantakath Abdul Kareem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fathimath Fasseena v. Thalayantakath Abdul Kareem

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

Seema Viswambharan Vs Shaji Chengamanat

M.Rajashanmugham Vs State of Kerala

Sidheek Vs State of Kerala

Soma Enterprise Ltd. Vs State

Soma Enterprises Vs State

Naveen Jose Vs State of Kerala