Allowed

Aaba Fenila v. Ibrahim P.M.

Kerala HC4 Dec 2023Crl.MC/2860/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case challenging prosecution for cheating and criminal breach of trust, the High Court of Kerala quashed proceedings against the third accused as the court found the prosecution case maintainable in light of previous orders quashing connected cases involving the same facts.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No. 390/2015 against the petitioner are quashed.

Aaba Fenila Vs Ibrahim P.M. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶4

CRL.MC NO. 2860 OF 2017

¶5

CRIME NO.2097/2011 OF Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 390/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - VIII, ERNAKULAM (TEMPORARY)

¶6

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

¶7

AABA FENILA
AGED 28 YEARS
AGED 28 YEARSD/O.VARGHESE.T.GTHUNDATHIL
HOUSENARAKKAL .P.O.VYPIN, NARAKKAL VILLAGEKOCHI
TALUKERNAKULAM-682505
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.C.ELDHO
SRI.ANEESH JAMES
SRI.JIJO THOMAS
SRI.MALLENATHAN.M.
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶9

1IBRAHIM P.M.
S/O.MOIDEEN AGED 43FLAT NO.12-A,
SOORYA ENCLAVE,
ELAMAKULAM VILLAGE,
KADAVANTHRA KARA,
ERNAKULAM-682020
2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM

¶10

SRI HRITHWIK CS, PP

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

CRL.MC NO. 2860 OF 2017

¶13

¶14

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶15

--------------------------------

¶16

Crl.M.C. No.2860 of 2017

¶17

----------------------------------------------

¶18

Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2023

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the3^rd accused in C.C. No. 390/2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶21

Court - VIII, Ernakulam. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, and Section 34 IPC.

¶22

The petitioner was the Director of the company namely M/s. Blue Dot Construction Private Ltd. The company entered into an agreement with the 1^st respondent for delivering an apartment in a multistoried building by name Surya Enclave after constructing the same. The company received

¶23

CRL.MC NO. 2860 OF 2017

¶24

¶25

consideration for the 1^st respondent. But instead of delivering the apartment to the 1^st respondent, the apartment was sold to a stranger. This is the crux of the prosecution case. The petitioner wants to quash the proceedings.

¶26

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

¶27

Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the connected cases were already quashed by this court as per order dated 26/02/2019 in Crl. M. C. No. 2873/2017 and order dated 06/11/2023 in Crl. M.C. No. 7911/2016. This court perused those orders.

¶29

After going through those orders, it is

¶30

clear that the same set of facts are stated in this case also. I think the prosecution case is not maintainable in the light of the above order.

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 2860 OF 2017

¶32

¶33

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is

¶34

allowed. All further proceedings in C.C. No. 390/2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - VIII, Ernakulam, as against the petitioner are quashed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

sms

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 2860 OF 2017

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2860/2017

¶42

`PETITIONE`	`R ANNEX`	`URES`
`ANNEXURE`	`A`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.2097/2011 OF THE` `STATION`	`FINAL REPORT IN CRIME` `KADAVANTHRA POLICE`
`ANNEXURE`	`B`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `ENTERED TO BETWEEN` `PETITIONER`	`AGREEMENT DATED 5.8.2006` `THE PARENTS OF THE`
`ANNEXURE`	`C`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `8.5.2009 IN OP NO.2` `FAMILY COURT, ERNAK`	`DECREE OF DIVORCE DATED` `73/2007 PASSED BY THE` `ULAM`
`ANNEXURE`	`D`	`A TRUE COPY OF SAID` `ISSUED BY THE PETIT` `MANAGING DIRECTOR O`	`LETTER DATED 1.3.2006` `IONER HEREIN TO THE` `F THE COMPANY`
`ANNEXURE`	`E`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `ORDINARY GENERAL ME` `ON 27.3.2006`	`MINUTES OF THE EXTRA` `ETING OF THE COMPANY HELD`
`ANNEXURE`	`F`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THIS HONBLE COURT I` `IN CRL. MC 6938/201`	`ORDER DATED 9.12.2014 OF` `N CRL.MA NO.11275 OF 2014` `4`
`ANNEXURE`	`G`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THIS HONOURABLE COU` `IN CRL.MC OF 2016`	`ORDER DATED 18.11.2016 OF` `RT IN CRL.MA NO.12224/2016`
`ANNEXURE`	`H`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THIS HONOURABLE COU` `IN CRL.MC NO 7907/2`	`ORDER DATED 18.11.2016 OF` `RT IN CRL.MA NO.12221/2016` `016`

Aaba Fenila v. Ibrahim P.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aaba Fenila v. Ibrahim P.M.

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

Manoj Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor

Raju John Vs State of Kerala

Jalaludheen Vs State of Kerala

Muhammedali Alias Muhammed Khani Vs Arif

Ummer Farook Vs the State of Kerala

Akhil Krishnan Vs State of Kerala