Kerala High Court
Sasi vs State Of Kerala on 3 October, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.MC NO. 1740 OF 2018 1
2024:KER:73790
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 11TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1740 OF 2018
CRIME NO.1181/2015 OF Balaramapuram Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OS NO.2213 OF 2015
OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1829 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER/S:
1 SASI
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT
SURESH BHAVAN, KALAMPATTU MELE, PALLICHAL DESOM,
PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020.
2 K.NAGAMMA
AGED 54 YEARS
D/O.KOCHUPENNU, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT SURESH
BHAVAN, KALAMPETTU MELE, PALLICHAL DESOM, PALLICHAL
VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
SMT.R.RANJANA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE
ADVOCATE GENERAL,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
(SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE
STATION).
2 J.T.SUDHARMA KUMARI
D/O.THANKAMMA PILLAI, PULLATH MUTTATH BHARATHI
MANDHIRAM, VENGANOOR DESOM, VENGANOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695523.
CRL.MC NO. 1740 OF 2018 2
2024:KER:73790
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1740 OF 2018 3
2024:KER:73790
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 1740 of 2018
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2024
ORDER
The petitioners are accused in CC No. 1829/2016 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III,
Neyyattinkara. The above case is charge-sheeted alleging
offence punishable under Sec. 420 r/w 34 IPC. The allegation
levelled against the petitioners in the final report are to the
effect that the accused had deceived the 2nd respondent, after
making her believe that they will bring her husband who had
absconded on condition that she will sell 5 cents out of 35
cents of her property to the 2nd petitioner. It is further
alleged that despite registration of the sale deed, the
petitioners had neither brought back the husband of the 2nd
respondent nor reconveyed the property and therefore, the
2024:KER:73790
petitioners committed the offence. According to the
petitioners, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no
offence is made out.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though notice is
issued to the 2nd respondent, there is no appearance.
3. The counsel for the petitioners submitted
that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is
made out against the petitioners. The counsel submitted that
the ingredients of Sec.420 IPC is not attracted in the facts
and circumstances of this case. The Public Prosecutor
submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners are
to be raised before the trial court, at the appropriate stage.
4. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The allegation in
Annexure-I final report against the petitioners is extracted
hereunder :
"പ്രതതികൾകക്ക് മമാനസതിക രരമാഗതി ആയ ഒനമാന്നാം സമാകതിയയ ചതതിചക്ക് വഞതിചക്ക് ടതിയമാളുയട
വസ്തു സസ്വന്തമമാകണയമന്നുള്ള ഉരദ്ദേശരതമാടന്നാം കരുതരലമാടന്നാം കൂടതി 1-ആന്നാം സമാകതിയുയട
വസ്തു ടതിയമാൾകക്ക് വതിൽക്കുനതതിനക്ക് അധതികമാരമുയണ്ടെന്നുള്ള യതളതിവക്ക് കണ്ടെമാൽ
പതിണങതിരപമായ ടതിയമാളുയട ഭർതമാവതിയന തതിരതിച്ചുയകമാണ്ടുവരമാന്നാം എന്നുന്നാം വനതിയല്ലെങതിൽ
2024:KER:73790
വസ്തു 1-ആന്നാം സമാകതികക്ക് തതിരതിചക്ക് ആധമാരന്നാം യചയ്തു യകമാടകമായമന്നുന്നാം 1-ആന്നാം സമാകതിയയ
1-ആന്നാം പ്രതതി പറഞ്ഞു വതിശസ്വസതിപതിചക്ക് 1-ആന്നാം സമാകതിയുയട ഉടമസ്ഥതയതിലുള്ള യവങമാനൂർ
വതിരല്ലെജതിൽ ടതി രദേശതക്ക് യവങമാനൂർ ചമാവടതി നടയതിൽ നതിന്നുന്നാം സതിസതിലതി പുരരതക്കുന്നാം മറന്നാം
രപമാകുന ഇട രറമാഡതിൽ ചമാവടതി നട ജന്നാംഗഗ്ഷനതിൽ നതിന്നുന്നാം ഉരദ്ദേശന്നാം 100 മമീറ്റർ വടകക്ക്-
കതിഴകക്ക് മമാറതി മമാർതമാണ്ഡൻ കുളതതിനക്ക് സമമീപന്നാം ടതി രറമാഡതിനക്ക് പടതിഞമാറക്ക് വശന്നാം ഉള്ള 1-
ആന്നാം സമാകതിയുയട വക റമീസർരവ 268/08- ൽ യപട്ട 35 ½ യസൻറക്ക് വസ്തുവതിൽ 5
യസനക്ക് വസ്തു 16.9.2015 തമീയതതി തതിരുവല്ലെന്നാം സബക്ക് രജതിസമാർ ഓഫമീസതിൽ വചക്ക് 1-ആന്നാം
സമാകതി 2-ആന്നാം പ്രതതിയുയട രപരതിൽ Deed No.1640/2015 നമ്പറമായതി വതിലയമാധമാരന്നാം യചയ്തു
വമാങതിയുന്നാം പ്രതതികൾ 1-ആന്നാം സമാകതിയതിൽ നതിന്നുന്നാം വസ്തു വതിലയമാധമാരന്നാം യചയ്തു
വമാങതിയരശഗ്ഷന്നാം ടതിയമാളുയട ഭർതമാവതിയന തതിരതിയക യകമാണ്ടെക്ക് യകമാടക്കുകരയമാ വസ്തു 1-
ആന്നാം സമാകതികക്ക് പ്രതതികൾ തതിരതിയക ആധമാരന്നാം യചയ്തു യകമാടക്കുകരയമാ യചയമായത
പ്രതതികൾ കൃതത്യതതിനക്ക് പരസ്പരന്നാം ഉതമാഹതികളുന്നാം സഹമായതികളുന്നാം ആയതി നതിനക്ക് പ്രവർതതിചക്ക്
മമാനസതികരരമാഗതിയമായ 1-ആന്നാം സമാകതിയയ ചതതിചക്ക് രമൽ വകുപ്പുകൾ പ്രകമാരമുള്ള കുറ്റന്നാം
യചയതിട്ടുള്ളതമായതി യവളതിവമായതിട്ടുള്ളതമാകുന്നു."
5. Whether the same amounts to an offence
under Sec.420 IPC is the question to be decided. According
to the defacto complainant, the document is registered on
condition that the petitioners will bring back her husband
and if not, the property will be reconveyed. Admittedly, the
property is assigned based on a registered sale deed as
evident by Annexure-II. In such circumstances, if the 2 nd
respondent has got a case that the sale deed executed by her
is null and void, she has to approach the competent civil
2024:KER:73790
court. A civil remedy cannot be converted to a criminal
proceedings. The Apex Court in Subbiah C @ Kadambur
Jayaraj v. Superintendent of Police [2024 KHC 6288]
observed that a civil litigation cannot be converted to
criminal prosecution. The relevant portion of the above
judgment 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 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
2024:KER:73790
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."
44. The complainant alleged that the accused abused
2024:KER:73790
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."
6. Similarly in Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar
Pradesh [2024 KHC 6251], the Apex Court observed the
basic ingredients of Sec. 420 IPC. The relevant portion of the
judgment is extracted hereunder :
37. "The chargesheet states that the offence under
2024:KER:73790
S.420 is not made out. The offence of cheating 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."
7. In the light of the above principle, this Court
considered the final report. I am of the considered opinion
that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence
under sec. 420 IPC is made out in this case. But, I make it
clear that if the defacto complainant has got a case that
Annexure-II is a sham document, she can approach
competent civil court, in accordance with law. But, the
criminal proceedings need not be continued.
8. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case
is allowed.
All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC
2024:KER:73790
No. 1829/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
2024:KER:73790
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.1829/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE
JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,
NEYYATTINKARA.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1640/2015
OF THIRUVALLOM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN
O.S.NO.2213/2015 FILED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
