Dismissed

Minimol v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2021Crl.MC/729/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the registration of an FIR under Sections 405 and 420 IPC regarding a lease fraud. The Court held that the trial court, not this High Court, must adjudicate the disputed liability of the accused.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed without prejudice to the parties' right to agitate issues in the trial.

Minimol Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.729 OF 2021(A)

¶6

CRIME NO.2181/2020 OF Cherthala Police Station , Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1 MINIMOL

¶9

AGED 37 YEARS D/O. MARIAMAMMANS & W/O. ALEX, RESIDING AT 30A, KAPPIYARA NAGARAPETTA VILLAI, PUDUKADA,PAYAMKULAM, TRIPPAMVILA, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU-629 156

¶10

2 M.SABUMON AGED 35 YEARS

¶11

D/O. MARIAMAMMANAS, RESIDING AT 30A, KAPPITARA NAGARAPETTA VILLAI, KAPPIYARAI POST, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU-629 156

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER

¶14

RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1 THE STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT COMPOUND, KOCHI-682 031

¶17

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 524

¶18

3 MAHENDRAN

¶19

AGED 35 YEARS RESIDING AT THEKKE KARUNATI VEETTIL, PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 541

¶20

R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC R3 BY ADV. SHRI.KURIAN K JOSE P.P.SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

Crl.MC.No.729 OF 2021(A)

¶24

ORDER

¶25

A lease arrangement entered into between the defacto complainant and the accused No.1, wherein accused No.2 is a witness, taken as the ground for registering a crime for the offence under Section 405 and 420 IPC on the ground that the accused persons made a representation that they are having legal right to lease out the subject matter of the lease, a poultry farm situated in Tamil Nadu, and under that guise obtained undue advantage by way of advance which comes to Rs. 7,64,000/- out of the annual rent payable for a period of five years (@ Rs.2 lakhs per year) without having such authority or entitlement and thereby committed the alleged offence. The poultry farm was belonged to somebody else, which was concealed from the notice of the defacto complainant. For repayment of the amount received, a subsequent agreement was entered into (Annexure B) between the defacto

¶26

¶27

Crl.MC.No.729 OF 2021(A)

¶28

complainant and accused No.2, but its execution is disputed and denied by accused No.1 and 2. In the first agreement, Annexure A, accused No.2 is only a witness and not a party and as such, whether criminal liability can be extended against him in view of the subsequent agreement Annexure B wherein he is a party is a question to be adjudicated by the trial court, especially when there is denial of execution of the second agreement. Hence there is no reason for

¶29

exhausting the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Without prejudice to the right of the parties to agitate all the issues and remedies, the Crl.M.C. is hereby dismissed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶32

SPV

¶33

Crl.MC.No.729 OF 2021(A)

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

ANNEXURE-A	DATED 25.1.2018, TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT NO.3
ANNEXURE-B	DATED 15.5.2018, TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE-C	DATED 25.09.2020, TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.2181 OF 2020 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE-D	DATED 27.11.2017, TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY PETITIONER NO.1 AND SREERAJ V.S.

¶38

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

¶39

ANNEXURE R3(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CMP
	NO.3224/2020 BEFORE THE JFMC-I, CHERTHALA
ANNEXURE R3 (B)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
	16.02.2021 BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE
	OFFICER, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

PA TO JUDGE

Minimol v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minimol 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

Chandrasekharan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Krishnakumar Vs the State of Kerala

John Britas Vs Abdul Salam

B.Suresh Vs State of Kerala

M.Mahesh Vs State of Kerala

M.M. Muraleedharan Vs the Assistant Labour Officer GR.11