Kerala High Court
Pushpam vs Gnanamani @ M.G.Mani on 22 January, 2014
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014/2ND MAGHA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 3579 of 2012
---------------------------
AGAINST JUDGMENT IN OS NO.40/2012 OF SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA
..............
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CMP NO.6152/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II,NEYYATTINKARA
....
CRIME NO. 1289/2012 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
...
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------
1. PUSHPAM, AGED 44 YEARS,
D/O.NEELAKANTAN, SUJA BHAVAN, THITTANKAVILA,
AINKKAMAM DESOM, PARASSALA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. SUJA, AGED 19 YEARS,
D/O.PUSHPAM, SUJA BHAVAN, THITTANKAVILA,
AINKKAMAM DESOM, PARASSALA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3. RAJESH, AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O.KESAVAN, CHENKKATTITHARA VEEDU, MADICHAL DESOM,
VILAVANKODE TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
4. VINOD KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, LATHA BHAVAN, UCHAKKADA P.O.,
KULATHOORL DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU
Kss ..2/-
..2....
Crl.M.C.No.3579/2012
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. GNANAMANI @ M.G.MANI, AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O.MUTHU SWAMY NADAR, M.G.BHAVAN, AYYINKAMAM DESOM,
PARASSALA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT R.C.BARK NO.37, ROOM NO.440, 2ND FLOOR,
CHEMBUR COLONY, MUMBAI-400 074.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MS. BINDU GOPINATH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 22-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
Crl.M.C.No.3579/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEX.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 19/10/2011.
ANNEX.II: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 25/10/2011.
ANNEX.III: COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DTD. 04/01/2012.
ANNEX.IV: COPY OF THE REPLYNOTICE DTD. 21/01/2012.
ANNEX.V: COPY OF THE O.P.(CAVEAT) NO.16/2012 DTD. 10/02/2012.
ANNEX.VI: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.40/2012 DTD. 18/02/2012.
ANNEX.VII: COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DTD. 14/10/2012
ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT DTD. 10/10/2012.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TOJUDGE
Kss
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3579 of 2012
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2014.
ORDER
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.").
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1289 of 2012 of Parassala Police Station, who stand accused for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexures I and II are the agreements executed between petitioners 1 and 2 on one hand and the 1st respondent on the other hand. As per these Annexures, petitioners 1 and 2 agreed to sell certain parcel of land to the 1st respondent for the price fixed therein. It is seen that on two occasions a total sum of `6,00,000/- was paid by the 1st respondent/complainant to the petitioners. It is the allegation in Annexure- VII complaint that the petitioners committed breach of trust and cheating as they acted against the terms in Annexures I and II. Annexure-VII complaint was forwarded by the concerned court to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and the FIR was registered.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant.
Crl.MC No.3579/2012 2
4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the investigation is not complete and no final report has been filed. Learned Public Prosecutor also contended so. Considering the nature of allegations and the questions involved, I do not wish to make any comment at this stage of investigation. It is made clear that the petitioners are free to take up all appropriate legal steps in the case if a final report is filed against them.
With this observation, Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks