The High Court of Kerala quashed further proceedings in a cheating case alleging non-recognized training. It held that no dishonest inducement to deliver property was alleged, failing to satisfy Section 420 IPC requirements.
All further proceedings in C.C.No.472 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna are hereby quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/8TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
CRL.MC NO. 7013 OF 2017
CRIME NO.601/2016 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM
CC 472/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,
PERINTHALMANNA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
2 KANAKA RAJANI W/O.NARAYANANKUTTY, AGED 41 YEARS, MULAKKAMPALATHINGAL HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLI, MARUKARAPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SMT.ANJU CLETUS SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 SHAHANA
AGED 25 YEARS, W/O.RIYAS, THONIKKARA HOUSE, CHUNGAM, PATTIKKAD, MELATTOOOR P.O.-679326, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ. P.P
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 7013 OF 2017
..2..
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all
further proceedings in C.C.No.472 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna (for short 'the court below').
are punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
The 1st petitioner is running an educational
institution namely “School of Positive” at Perinthalmanna. The Montessori Teachers' Training
Course is conducted in the institution. The 2nd petitioner is the teacher imparting training in the Montessori Teachers' Training Course. The 2nd respondent and other students joined the course in
..3..
CRL.MC NO. 7013 OF 2017
the year 2015-16 and after completing the course, they came to know that the course was not recognized by any Government, University, Public Service Commission or any other academic council. Hence, the petitioners have committed the offence of cheating.
the learned Public Prosecutor. The notice addressed to the 2nd respondent was served to her mother, but there is no appearance.
CRL.MC NO. 7013 OF 2017
..4..
(i) The deception of a person either by
making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment, or by any other act or omission.
(ii) The fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
(iii) Such act or omission causes or is
likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
8 . To constitute an offence under Section 420,
there should not only be cheating but, as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have
CRL.MC NO. 7013 OF 2017
..5..
dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.
9 . I went through the FIS as well as the statement of the 2 nd respondent recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The 2 nd respondent admits that after joining the course, she underwent coaching at the institute run by the 1 st petitioner. Her case is that she did not get necessary coaching to become a Montessori Teacher at the institute. Her further case is that the teachers were not qualified. It is not the case of the 2 nd respondent that accused offered her any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce her to do or omit to do anything which she would not do or omit if she were not so
..6..
CRL.MC NO. 7013 OF 2017
deceived. No action on the part of the accused has been alleged that discloses the intention to induce the delivery of any property to them by the 2 nd respondent. There is no allegation either in the FIS or in the statement of the 2 nd respondent recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C that at the very inception, at the time of joining the course, the accused had intention to cheat the 2 nd respondent. There is also no allegation that the accused induced the 2 nd respondent either to join the course or to pay the fee with an intention to cheat her.
ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of IPC are absent either in the FIS or in the statement of
the de facto complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Thus, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.472 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna is hereby quashed.
CRL.MC NO. 7013 OF 2017
..7..
This Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.
Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH , JUDGE
AS
CRL.MC NO. 7013 OF 2017
..8..
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7013/2017
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.601/2016 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16/04/2012 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFILIATION CERTIFICATE. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY HRDC. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS OF THE INSTITUTION. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/08/2016 IN BAIL APPL.NOS.5823/2016, 5827/2016 AND 5983/2016.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.601/2016 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ingredients of cheating and dishonest inducement under Section 420 IPC are made out based on the First Information Statement.
Whether further criminal proceedings should be quashed in light of the absence of allegations regarding fraudulent inducement to deliver property.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Musthafa
Kanaka Rajani
State of Kerala
Shahana
Kauser Edappagath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
