Kerala High Court
Silvichan vs State Of Kerala on 5 April, 2022
Crl.M.C.No.2867/2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 2867 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 529/2020 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, CHERTHALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SILVICHAN,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O.MAMACHAN, MALIKAYYAL CHIRAYIL HOUSE,
CHEERPUNKAL (P.O),PARIPPUKARA, AYAMANAM VILLAGE,
KUMARAKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 563.
BY ADVS.
M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 018.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MUHAMMA POLICE STATION, MUHAMMA (P.O),
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 525.
Crl.M.C.No.2867/2020 2
3 V.N.VIJAYAKUMAR,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O.GREGORY, VELIYIL VEEDU, MUTTATHIPARAMBU (P.O),
THANNERMUKKAM NORTH VILLAGE, MUHAMMA, ALAPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN-688 525.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SMT.BHANU THILAK
SRI.RANJIT GEORGE - SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.2867/2020 3
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.99 of 2020 of
Muhamma Police station, registered for the offences punishable
under section 420 IPC. The FIR was registered based on a private
complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent herein, which was
referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. Allegation contained in the aforesaid complaint (Annexure-
A1) is that the petitioner herein had taken a houseboat belonging to
the 3rd respondent for lease for a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/-.
Annexure-A3 is the agreement based on which the aforesaid
transaction took place. Later, it was alleged that the petitioner
neither returned the houseboat nor paid the rent. The complaint
was submitted in such circumstances, resulting in Annexure-2 FIR.
This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing all
further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2 FIR.
2. Heard Sri.R.Reji, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri.Ranjit George, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The specific case put forward by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that any of the allegations contained in Annexure-A1
would not reveal any culpability on the part of the petitioner herein.
According to him, the transaction which gave rise to the proceedings
is purely civil in nature and in such circumstances, this is a fit case
in which powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be
invoked. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the same.
4. When the material allegations as contained in Annexure-
A1 are considered, I find some force in the contention put forward
by the petitioner herein. The primary allegation in Annexure-A1 is
that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the 3 rd
respondent to take a houseboat belonging to the 3 rd
respondent/defacto complainant for rent, which contained specific
terms and conditions. As per the terms and conditions of the
agreement ( Annexure A3), the petitioner herein had an obligation to
pay Rs.15,00,000/-. However, the endorsements contained in
Annexure-A3 would indicate that the petitioner made a substantial
payment of about Rs.13,00,000/- towards the advance. On carefully
scrutinizing the allegations contained in Annexure-A1, it can be seen
that what is disclosed there is a civil transaction. The offence
alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 IPC, and in order
to attract the aforesaid provision, a dishonest intention on the part
of the accused right from the inception should be established. From
Annexure-A1, no such dishonest intention can be elicited. The
substantial payments made by the petitioner herein indicate the
same. The nature of the transaction as contained in Annexure-A3 is
of a rent deed, and if at all, any of the parties therein have
committed a breach of any terms and conditions of the same, that
can have only civil consequences. Under no stretch of imagination
the said breach can be brought within the ambit of criminal
prosecution by incorporating provision under Section 420IPC. In
connection with the very same transaction a civil suit numbered as
O.S 254/2020 is also pending before the Additional Munsiff Court,
Kottayam. In (citation), it was held by the Honourable Supreme
Court that, when the primary dispute is civil in nature, and the
attempt of the complainant is to give a criminal flavour to the same,
powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked.
When the allegations as contained in Annexure-A1 private complaint
are taken into consideration, I am of the view that the aforesaid
principles are to be made applicable in this case. The nature of the
allegations therein does not attract the offences under Section 420
IPC. In such circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case in
which powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be
invoked, as the dispute is purely civil in nature, for which no
culpability to be attributed to the petitioner.
In the result, this Crl.M.C.is allowed and all further
proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2 FIR in Crime No.99 of 2020 of
Muhamma police station are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
DG/6.4.22
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2867/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P NO.529/2020 ON THE
FILE S OF THE HON'BLE JFCM-II, CHERTHALA
ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.99/2020 OF
MUHAMA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01.11.2017
EXECUTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND
THAT OF THE PETITIONER
ANNEXURE-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.254/2020
ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT,
KOTTAYAM
ANNEXURE-A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2020 IN
IA NO.1/2020 IN OS NO.254/2020
