Muhammed @ Binoy vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 7286 Ker

   Crl.MC.5520/2020                 1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

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

                      Crl.MC.No.5520 OF 2020(H)

     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 5305/2014 OF JUDICIAL
            MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY

      CRIME NO.808/2011 OF Koraty Police Station , Thrissur


PETITIONER/S:

                MUHAMMED @ BINOY
                AGED 44 YEARS
                S/O. PAPPACHAN, CHALISSERY HOUSE, OLLUR DESOM,
                OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
                PIN - 680306.

                BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
                PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -
                682031

      2         SUVILASH
                AGED 36 YEARS
                S/O. SUKUMARAN, VELLOLY HOUSE, KALLUR DESOM,
                KALLUR, THEKKUMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
                THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680317.

      3         RAMESH @ KRISHNAN
                AGED 36 YEARS
                S/O. RAMESH, KRISHNAKRIPA HOUSE, PUDUSSERY DESOM,
                PUDUSSERY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678623.


OTHER PRESENT:

                PP T.R.RENJITH

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD             ON
8.2.2021, THE COURT ON 02.03.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
    Crl.MC.5520/2020                     2



                                 V.G.ARUN, J.
                  -----------------------------------------------
                        CRL.M.C.No. 5520 of 2020
                  -----------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2021

                                  ORDER

Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.808 of 2011 of Koratty

Police Station registered for the offence under Section 420 read with

34 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.5305 of 2014 on the files of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Chalakkudy. The prosecution

allegation is that the accused deceived the de facto complainant and

got custody of his Innova Car bearing registration No.KL-18-C-5262,

promising to return the vehicle after one week. But, contrary to the

assurance, accused demanded money for returning the vehicle. The

petitioner was not arrested during the investigation stage, which

resulted in the absconding charge sheet being filed. Recovery of the

Innova car, alleged to have been stolen by the accused has also not

been effected.

2. The prayer in this Crl.M.C is to quash the criminal proceedings

against the petitioner. It is contended that, even if taken in their

entirety, the allegations are not sufficient to constitute the offence

under Section 420 IPC and at best, the allegation would only indicate

of there being a civil dispute between the parties.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having

gone through the final report, I am unable to accept the contention. It

is alleged that the accused deceived the de facto complainant into

handing over his vehicle to them, believing their words that the vehicle

will be returned within one week. By refusing to return the vehicle and

concealing it, the accused cheated the de facto complainant. This act

of the accused, if proved, would fall within the definition of 'cheating'

under Section 415 of IPC. The falsity or otherwise of the allegation has

to be decided on the basis of evidence. While exercising the inherent

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this Court is not expected to sift the

evidence and arrive at a conclusion regarding the innocence of the

accused. If the petitioner's case is that the documents produced along

with the final report are not sufficient to prove his complicity, then he

should avail the efficacious remedy of moving an application for

discharge before the trial court.

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

it open to the petitioner to move an application for discharge before

the trial court, if charge has not been framed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

vgs

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.

808 OF 2011 OF KORATTY POLICE STATION DATED 23.7.2011.

ANNEXURE II A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 808 OF 2011 OF KORATTY POLICE STATION DATED 30.08.2014.