Hanan A vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 7219 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

    TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      Crl.MC.No.4807 OF 2013(F)

  CC 299/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM

      CRIME NO.836/2011 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             HANAN A, AGED 31 YEARS,
             S/o A.ANZAR, HAJARA MANZIL,
             M.S.NAGAR, HOUSE NO.91(A),
             KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KOLLAM-4.

             BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
                     SMT.BHANU THILAK
                     SRI.S.R.PRASANTH

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

      1      STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

      2      VIMALDAS, AGED 45 YEARS,
             S/o CHINNAYYA, PARAYIL HOUSE,
             UTHAYAMARTHANDAPURAM CHERRY,
             MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM - 691 004.

             R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
             R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C. BINEESH



     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.4807 of 2013                2




                                     ORDER

In connection with an agreement for sale between

the accused and the defacto complainant, a crime was

registered for the offence under Sections 418 and 420

IPC. After investigation, Annexure-3 final report was

submitted, against which the accused came up.

2. The allegation is that there is material

suppression of fact with respect to the ownership of

the property, which is the subject of the contract for

sale, which according to the defacto complainant

amounts to cheating.

3. It was countered by the petitioner that in the

agreement itself, there is disclosure that the property

is belonged to three named persons in the agreement and

what he had undertaken is to get a sale deed executed

in the name of the defacto complainant within the time

agreed into. It is submitted that on enquiry, the

property, which is the subject of the contract for

sale, stands in the name of some other person. The

accused alone cannot be held responsible for the non-

disclosure of ownership of the property, if any, and

the defacto complainant is equally responsible for not

making proper enquiry regarding the title of the

property before entering into a contract for sale. The

failure on the part of the defacto complainant in

making proper enquiry with the title and ownership of

the property cannot be a ground to extend criminal

liability against the accused. Hence, the FIR and the

final report will not serve any purpose. The same is

quashed.

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE DMR/-

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.7.2011 PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFCM-II, KOLLAM AS CMP NO.4084/2011.

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.836/2011 OF THE ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, DATED 23.7.2011.

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.836/2011 OF THE ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION DATED 8.3.2012.

ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 28.10.2010 EXECUTED BY ASANARU KUNJU, S/o MYTHEEN KUNJU, ANSAR, S/o AKBAR ALI AND SEENATH IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 13.12.2010 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.No.1293/ 2013 DATED 30.01.2017 OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE:      NIL


                                                   // TRUE COPY    //




                                                    P.A. TO JUDGE