Dismissed

Sajeer v. Hawah

Kerala HC13 Jun 2023Crl.MC/246/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition challenging the rejection of a private complaint for IPC offences alleged against property sellers. The court found the dispute to be a purely civil contract matter and held that this challenge required a second revision, which was not permissible.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 246 of 2014 is dismissed for lack of interference in the civil dispute between the parties.

Sajeer Vs Hawah — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 246 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRRP 20/2013 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

MP 2020/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS I ,PERUMBAVOOR
PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SAJEER
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. MAITHEEN, CHERAKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED
SRI.V.S.MANSOOR

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 HAWAH

¶11

AGED 79 YEARS

¶12

W/O. PAREETHU, CHERAKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.

¶13

2 SULAIMAN AGED 55 YEARS

¶14

S/O. PAREETHU, CHERAKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.

¶15

3 BASHEER AGED 42 YEARS

¶16

S/O. PAREETHU, CHERAKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.

¶17

4 BEEFATHU

¶18

W/O. ABDUL KHADER AND D/O. PAREETHU, CHERAKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.

¶19

5 JAMEELA

¶20

D/O. PAREETHU AND W/O. VEERAPILLA, INJAKKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.

¶21

6 NASI NASEEMA AGED 50 YEARS D/O. PAREETHU AND W/O. KUNJAHAMMAD, THACHARUKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.

¶22

7 SUBAIDA AGED 45 YEARS S/O. PAREETHU AND W/O.IBRAHIM, SAIDUKUDY HOUSE, EDATHALA.

¶23

8 THAHIRA AGED 43 YEARS

¶24

D/O. PAREETHU AND W/O. ASHRAF, CHAMAPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶25

CRL.MC NO. 246 OF 2014

¶26

¶27

KADUNGALLOOR.

¶28

9 ASSI ASSIS AGED 41 YEARS S/O. PAREETHU, CHERAKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.

¶29

10 KHADEEJA AGED 52 YEARS W/O. IBRAHIM, CHERAKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.

¶30

11 SHEBEER AGED 33 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM, CHERAKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.

¶31

12 SAJEED AGED 28 YEARS

¶32

S/O. IBRAHIM, CHERAKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.

¶33

13 SALEENA AGED 38 YEARS

¶34

D/O. IBRAHIM, CHERAKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.

¶35

14 NASEEMA AGED 37 YEARS W/O. JALAL, CHERAKKAKUDI HOUSE, VENGOLA.

¶36

15 ASSAINAR AGED 47 YEARS

¶37

S/O.MUHAMMED @ KOCHUMUHAMMED, VELLAKKUDI, PALLIPRAM.

¶38

16 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶39

OTHER PRESENT:

¶40

SR.PP.RENJITH GEORGE

¶41

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

¶43

CRL.MC NO. 246 OF 2014

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2023

¶46

The petitioner filed a private complaint against respondents 1 to 15 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 120B, 418, 420, 468 r/w 149 IPC. In his complaint, the petitioner alleged that accused Nos.1 to 14, who are the title holders of an immovable properties had executed an agreement for sale in his favor and received Rs.10,00,000/- as advance. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 14 sold the property to accused No.15. The trial court rejected the complaint, finding that the allegations being regarding breach of contract, none of the offences are attracted. Although petitioner preferred a revision, that was also dismissed, finding the dispute to be purely civil in nature. This Crl.M.C is filed challenging the order of the civil court, as affirmed by the revisional court.

¶47

2.Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶48

Having, perused the available materials, I find no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the courts below that the dispute is

¶49

CRL.MC NO. 246 OF 2014

¶50

¶51

purely civil in nature. Moreover, the challenge is more in the nature of a 2^nd revision, though couched as Crl.M.C.

¶52

For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.

¶53

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶54

¶55

CRL.MC NO. 246 OF 2014

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 246/2014

¶58

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN M.P.NO.
2029 OF 2012 ON THE FILES OF JFCM-1,
PERUMBAVOOR.
ANNEXURE B- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14-12-12 IN
M.P.NO. 2029 OF 2012 ON THE FILES OF JFCM-1,
PERUMBAVOOR.
ANNEXURE C- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 01-10-13 IN
CRL.R.P.NO. 20 OF 2013 OF SESSIONS COURT,
ERNAKULAM.

Sajeer v. Hawah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeer v. Hawah

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

Muhammed Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Raghav Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Issac Vas Vs State of Kerala

Chinchu @ Nishad Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala