Kerala High Court
Mariyu vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2024
Author: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2024:KER:77434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 3706 OF 2018
CRIME NO.966/2012 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.247 OF 2018 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, MANJERI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
MARIYU, AGED 58 YEARS
W/O.BASHEER, THENGAPURACKKAL PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,
THAZHAKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
SRI. AJMAL V. A.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE,
MANJERI POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.966/2012
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.3706/2018
2
2024:KER:77434
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3706 of 2018
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash C.C.No.247/2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. It is a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence under Section 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner along with the 2nd accused made the defacto complainant believe that they would arrange a landed property to the defacto complainant for purchase, for which on 14.05.2010, an agreement has been entered between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, agreeing the registration of sale deed of the property in favour of the defacto complainant within six months. The defacto complainant paid an amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the accused. The accused failed to convey the property as promised by the agreement within the time Crl.M.C.3706/2018 3 2024:KER:77434 prescribed. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. Annexure-I is the final report. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
4. This Court perused Annexure-I final report. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Annexure-I final report:
'1-)o സാക്ഷിയെ 1, 2 പ്രതികൾ ചതിക്കണമെന്ന ഉദ്ദേശ്യത്തോടും ഒത്തൊരുമിച്ചും കൂട്ടായും 1-)o പ്രതിയുടെ കൈവശത്തിലുള്ള 250 ഏക്രയിൽ കുറയാത്ത വസ്തുവഹകൾ 2-)o പ്രതിയുടെ വാക്കാലുള്ള ഉറപ്പിലും വിശ്വാസത്തിലും സെന്റൊന്നിന് 4250/- രുപ വിലനിശ്ചയിച്ച് 1-)o സാക്ഷിക്ക് എടുത്തുകൊടുക്കാമെന്ന് സമ്മതിച്ച് 1, 2 പ്രതികൾ ചില ആധാരത്തിന്റേയും മറ്റും ഫോട്ടോസ്റ്റാറ്റ് കോപ്പികൾ 1-)o സാക്ഷിക്ക് കാണിച്ചു കൊടുത്ത് വിശ്വസിപ്പിച്ച് 14.05.2010 തീയ്യതി 1-)o സാക്ഷിയും 1-)o പ്രതിയും തമ്മിൽ 1-)o സാക്ഷിയുടെ മഞ്ചേരി വലിയട്ടിപ്പറമ്പിലുള്ള വീട്ടിൽ വെച്ച് കരാറിൽ ഏർപ്പെടുകയും, ആയതിൽ 2-)o പ്രതി 2-)o സാക്ഷിയായി ഒപ്പുവച്ച് വസ്തു ഇടപാടിലേക്ക് 25 ലക്ഷം രൂപ അഡ്വാൻസ് നിശ്ചയിച്ച് മേൽ പറഞ്ഞ ദിവസം 1 ലക്ഷം രൂപ 1-)o സാക്ഷി 1-)o പ്രതിക്ക് നൽകുകയും തുടർന്ന് 05.06.2010 തീയ്യതി 1-)o സാക്ഷി വീണ്ടും 1-)o പ്രതിക്ക് 9 ലക്ഷം രൂപ നൽകുകയും അഡ്വാൻസിൽ ബാക്കിയുള്ള 15 ലക്ഷം രൂപക്ക് 30.06.2010 തീയ്യതിക്ക് മാറാവുന്ന ചെക്ക് നൽകുകയും തുടർന്ന് 1 ,2 പ്രതികൾ പറഞ്ഞു വിശ്വസിപ്പിച്ചിരുന്ന ഭൂമി 6 മാസം കൊണ്ട് രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്തു തരാമെന്ന കരാർ പാലിക്കാതെ 1-)o സാക്ഷിയെ 1, 2 പ്രതികൾ വിശവാസവഞ്ചന ചെയ്ത് ചതിച്ചിരിക്കയാൽ 1, 2 പ്രതികൾ മേൽ വകുപ്പുകൾ പ്രകാരം ശിക്ഷാർഹമായ കുറ്റം ചെയ്തിരിക്കുന്നു എന്ന്.' Crl.M.C.3706/2018 4 2024:KER:77434
5. A perusal of the same only shows that there was a violation of an agreement. If there is a violation of the agreement, there may be a civil consequence to the defacto complainant towards the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that, this will not attract the offence under Section 420 IPC.
6. The Apex Court in Subbiah C. @ Kadambur Jayaraj v. Superintendent of Police [2024 KHC 6288] considered this point. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
'40. The complainant has clearly alleged that the accused caused him monetary loss because the appropriate share of profits was not passed on to him after some plots from the entire chunk had been sold. This Court in the case of Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 201 observed that: - "A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up the promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings".
41. Similarly, in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai v.
State of W.B., 2022 (7) SCC 124, this Court while tracing the earlier decisions on the subject observed as under: 24. This Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., 2000 (2) SCC 636) observed that it is the Crl.M.C.3706/2018 5 2024:KER:77434 duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature. 25. This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This Court in Indian Oil Corpn. (Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., 2006 (6) SCC 736) noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders / creditors. The Court further observed that : (Indian Oil Corpn case (Indian Oil Corpn v. NEPC India Ltd., 2006 (6) SCC 736) "13. ... Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
42. Thus, we are of the firm view that the necessary ingredients of the offences punishable under S.406 and S.420 IPC are not made out against the accused appellants from the admitted allegations set out in the complaint and the charge sheet. It cannot be doubted that a dispute which is purely civil in nature has been given a colour of criminal prosecution alleging fraud and criminal breach of trust by misusing the tool of criminal law.
43. The Investigating Officer has also applied offences under S.294(b) and S.506(ii) read with S.114 IPC in the charge sheet. On going through the entire charge sheet, we do not find any such material therein which can justify invocation of the offence under S.294(b) IPC which reads as below: - "294. Obscene acts and songs. - Whoever, to the annoyance of others, (a) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."
Crl.M.C.3706/2018 62024:KER:77434
44. The complainant alleged that the accused abused him by using profane language. S.294(b) IPC would clearly not apply to such an act. Apart from a bald allegation made by the complainant that A - 1 abused him and intimidated him on 28th July, 2010, there is no material which can show that the accused indulged in criminal intimidation of the complainant so as to justify invocation of the offence punishable under S.506(ii) IPC.
45. We have to be conscious of the fact that the complainant has tried to misuse the tool of criminal law by filing the patently frivolous FIR dated 6th March, 2011, wherein the allegation is levelled regarding the so - called incident of criminal intimidation dated 28th July, 2010. The said allegation otherwise is also belied for the reason that in the FIR, the complainant states that he filed a complaint dated 29th July, 2010 in Kovilpatti West Police Station, but the RTI reply from the said police station clearly states that no such complaint was ever received.
46. Thus, we are persuaded to accept the contention of learned counsel for the accused appellants to hold that the criminal prosecution instituted against the accused appellants in pursuance of the totally frivolous FIR tantamounts to sheer abuse of the process of law.'
7. Similarly, in Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2024 KHC 6251] the Apex Court considered the ingredients of Section 420 IPC. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
'37. The chargesheet states that the offence under S.420 is not made out. The offence of cheating Crl.M.C.3706/2018 7 2024:KER:77434 under S.415 of the IPC requires dishonest inducement, delivering of a property as a result of the inducement, and damage or harm to the person so induced. The offence of cheating is established when the dishonest intention exists at the time when the contract or agreement is entered, for the essential ingredient of the offence of cheating consists of fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him to deliver any property, to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he had not been deceived. As per the investigating officer, no fraudulent and dishonest inducement is made out or established at the time when the agreement was entered.'
8. The Apex Court in Vinay Kumar Ghai and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others [2022 KHC 6328] considered the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC. It will be better to extract the relevant paragraph hereunder:
42. The order of the High Court is seriously flawed due to the fact that in its interim order dated 24/03/2017, it was observed that the contentions put forth by the Appellant vis-a-vis two complaints being filed on the same cause of action at different places but the impugned order overlooks the said aspect and there was no finding on that issue. At the same time, in order to attract the ingredients of Section of 406 and 420 IPC it is imperative on the part of the complainant to prima facie establish that there was an intention on part of the petitioner and / or others to cheat and / or to defraud the complainant right from the inception. Furthermore it has to be prima facie established that due to such Crl.M.C.3706/2018 8 2024:KER:77434 alleged act of cheating the complainant (Respondent No. 2 herein) had suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful gain for the accused (appellant herein). In absence of these elements, no proceeding is permissible in the eyes of law with regard to the commission of the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. It is apparent that the complaint was lodged at a very belated stage (as the entire transaction took place from January 2008 to August 2009, yet the complaint has been filed in March 2013 1.e., after a delay of almost 4 years) with the objective of causing harassment to the petitioner and is bereft of any truth whatsoever.
(underline supplied)
9. In the light of the above principles, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of prosecution against the petitioner is not necessary.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.247/2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri are quashed.
Sd/-
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Sbna/17.10.2024 Crl.M.C.3706/2018 9 2024:KER:77434 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3706/2018 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC.NO.247/2018 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI.