Allowed

Hanan a v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2021Crl.MC/4807/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala quashed an FIR and final report in a cheating case (Sections 418, 420 IPC) where the accused was alleged to have suppressed facts about property ownership. The court held the accused cannot be solely responsible for lack of disclosure as the complainant failed to make proper title enquiries.

What did the court decide?

The FIR and the final report will not serve any purpose. The same is quashed.

Hanan a 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 P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4807 OF 2013(F)

¶6

CC 299/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM CRIME NO.836/2011 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

HANAN A, AGED 31 YEARS, S/o A.ANZAR, HAJARA MANZIL, M.S.NAGAR, HOUSE NO.91(A), KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KOLLAM-4.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SMT.BHANU THILAK SRI.S.R.PRASANTH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶12

2 VIMALDAS, AGED 45 YEARS, S/o CHINNAYYA, PARAYIL HOUSE, UTHAYAMARTHANDAPURAM CHERRY, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM – 691 004.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C. BINEESH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.4807 of 2013

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

In connection with an agreement for sale between

¶19

the accused and the defacto complainant, a crime was registered for the offence under Sections 418 and 420 IPC. After investigation, Annexure-3 final report was submitted, against which the accused came up.

¶20

The allegation is that there is material

¶21

suppression of fact with respect to the ownership of the property, which is the subject of the contract for sale, which according to the defacto complainant amounts to cheating.

¶22

It was countered by the petitioner that in the agreement itself, there is disclosure that the property is belonged to three named persons in the agreement and what he had undertaken is to get a sale deed executed in the name of the defacto complainant within the time agreed into. It is submitted that on enquiry, the property, which is the subject of the contract for sale, stands in the name of some other person. The

¶23

accused alone cannot be held responsible for the non-

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.4807 of 2013 3

¶25

disclosure of ownership of the property, if any, and

¶26

the defacto complainant is equally responsible for not making proper enquiry regarding the title of the property before entering into a contract for sale. The failure on the part of the defacto complainant in making proper enquiry with the title and ownership of the property cannot be a ground to extend criminal liability against the accused. Hence, the FIR and the final report will not serve any purpose. The same is quashed.

¶27

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Crl.M.C.No.4807 of 2013

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶36

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.7.2011 PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFCM-II, KOLLAM AS CMP NO.4084/2011. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.836/2011 OF THE ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, DATED 23.7.2011. ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.836/2011 OF THE ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION DATED 8.3.2012. ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 28.10.2010 EXECUTED BY ASANARU KUNJU, S/o MYTHEEN KUNJU, ANSAR, S/o AKBAR ALI AND SEENATH IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 13.12.2010 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶37

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.No.1293/ 2013 DATED 30.01.2017 OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM.

¶38

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL

¶39

// TRUE COPY //

¶40

P.A. TO JUDGE

Hanan a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanan a 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Lawrance @ Roy Vs State of Kerala

Abdu Rahiman @ Kunjappu Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Abdul Karim Faizal Vs the State of Kerala

Libsy Ann Merin Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs the State of Kerala

Sundaran, Vs State of Kerala