[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Siju Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
Crl. M.C No.11 of 2025
2026:KER:15583
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 11 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.505 OF 2024
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONER/S:
SIJU RAJAN,
AGED 43 YEARS
SON OF LATE S. RAJAN, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 9,
HIGH LAND PARK, MLA ROAD, KUDAPPANAKUNNU
P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OFFICE ADDRESS: ADV. SIJU
RAJAN, S/O S RAJAN, ROOM NO. 7€, MAHARANI
BUILDING, OPP. TRIVENY NURSING HOME, VANCHIYOOR
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695035
BY ADV SRI.T.H.ARAVIND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 SHRI GEOGI GEORGE,
AGED 72 YEARS
SON OF LATE GEORGE KUTTY, CHRISTIAN, RESIDING AT
NAYARAKULANGARA HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
MAVELIKKARA TALUK', ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 690103
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.PRADEEP KUMAR
SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
SHRI.ARJUN P.P.
SMT.NAMITHA GEORGE
Crl. M.C No.11 of 2025
2
2026:KER:15583
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C No.11 of 2025
3
2026:KER:15583
C.S.DIAS, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl. M.C No.11 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C
No.505/2024 on the file of the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class - I, Mavelikkara, which has been
registered on the basis of Annexure A private complaint
filed by the 2nd respondent, alleging the commission of
offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The 2nd respondent's case in Annexure A
complaint, in a nutshell, is that he was a friend of the
petitioner's late father. The petitioner is the managing
trustee of the Aleykutty Memorial Charitable Trust,
Ernakulam. For the smooth functioning of the above
trust and its parent trust, the petitioner had approached
the 2nd respondent for a personal loan. Having due
2026:KER:15583
regard to the relationship between the parties, the 2nd
respondent bank transferred Rs. 1,00,000 to the
petitioner on 27.07.2016. Subsequently, on 07.11.2016,
the 2nd respondent again bank transferred Rs.2,00,000
to the petitioner as a loan. After that, on 10.12.2016, the
2nd respondent again paid Rs. 1,00,000 to the petitioner
as an oral loan for the medical treatment of one Jose
Kutty, who is a close relative of the petitioner. The
petitioner received the money from the 2nd respondent
by promising to repay the money within two years, with
bank interest. Despite repeated demands made by the
2nd respondent, the petitioner has refused to repay the
money. Thus, the petitioner has committed the offences
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed an objection,
inter alia, contending that the Crl.M.C is not
maintainable in law. This Court may not interfere with
the proceedings at the threshold and quash the same.
The Trial Court has rightly taken cognizance of the
2026:KER:15583
offence under Section 420 IPC. The contention of the
petitioner that the dispute is civil in nature and barred
by limitation, is without merit. The petitioner received
the money from the 2nd respondent on the assurance
that he would repay the same within two years. The
petitioner had received the money by misrepresenting
that it was to be used to manage a charitable trust. The
2nd respondent is a senior citizen. The prolonging of the
dispute and evading the repayment, would adversely
affect the 2nd respondent. The petitioner's sole intention
is to protract the determination of the complaint. The
Crl.M.C is devoid of any merits and is liable to be
dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that, even if the allegation in the complaint are
taken on their face value, the same would not attract the
2026:KER:15583
offence under Section 420 IPC. There is not a whisper in
the complaint that the petitioner had allegedly received
the money from the 2nd respondent with the mens rea
act to cheat the 2nd respondent, which is the elementary
ingredient to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC.
As long as there are no such averments in the complaint,
the complaint is only liable to be quashed.
6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
vehemently opposes the Crl. M.C. He submits that the
petitioner received the money from the 2nd respondent
on the assurance that he would use the money to run the
trust. However, the petitioner has used the money for his
personal needs. The petitioner had the mens rea act to
cheat the 2nd respondent at the time of receiving the
money. Moreover, this Court may not delve into the said
question at this stage and quash the proceedings
because it is a matter to be decided after trial. Hence,
the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.
7. A reading of the allegations in Annexure A
2026:KER:15583
complaint reveals that Rs.1,00,000 was paid by the 2nd
respondent to the petitioner on 27.07.2016 for the
smooth functioning of the trust and its parent trust.
Subsequently, Rs.2,00,000 was paid by the 2nd
respondent to the petitioner as a loan for the same
purpose. And, on 10.12.2016, the 2nd respondent paid
Rs. 1,00,000 as an oral loan to the petitioner for the
medical treatment of one of the petitioner's close
relatives. The 2nd respondent has further alleged that
the complainant made the 2nd respondent believe that
the money would be repaid within two years with bank
interest. However, despite repeated demands, the
petitioner failed to repay the money.
8. The above allegations undoubtedly
demonstrate that the 2nd respondent had paid the
petitioner the money on the belief that the petitioner
would repay the money within two years with bank
interest.
9. In Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd and Another v.
2026:KER:15583
State of Kerala and Others, [2015 8 SCC 293], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that every
breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of
cheating. The offence of cheating will arise only when
there was a deception at the very inception of the
transaction. In order to attract the offence of cheating,
the complainant is required to show the accused had a
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a
promise out of representation. The mere failure on the
part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence
of the culpable intention at the time of making the initial
promise, does attract the offence under Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code. The real test to be considered is
whether the allegations of the complaint disclose the
offence of cheating.
10. It is also apposite to refer to the
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishal
Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
[(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1680], wherein it is held that in
2026:KER:15583
recent years, the machinery of criminal justice is being
misused by certain persons for their vested interests and
for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. The
Courts therefore have to be vigilant against such
tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and
commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of
our society are nipped in the bud.
11. Likewise, in Vijayasarathy R.K. (Prof)
and Another v. Sudha Seetharam and Another [2019
KHC 6181], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has to be exercised with care. In the exercise
of its jurisdiction, a High Court can examine whether a
matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been
given the cloak of a criminal offence. Where the
ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are
not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the
continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an
abuse of the process of the court.
2026:KER:15583
12. In the celebrated judgment in State of
Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992)
Supp (1) SCC 335], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid
down exhaustive principles for quashing a criminal
proceeding by exercising the inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C, and they read as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions
of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power Under Art.226 or the inherent powers Under S.482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the Accused.
2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under S.156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
S.155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the Accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non - cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated Under S.155(2) of the Code.
2026:KER:15583
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the Accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and /
or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and /
or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite
him due to private and personal grudge ".
13. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent after paying
the petitioner Rs. 1,00,000 on 27.07.2016, again paid the
petitioner Rs. 2,00,000 on 07.11.2016 and Rs.1,00,000
on 10.12.2016. If the 2nd respondent felt that the
petitioner had an intention to cheat him at the first
instance itself, obviously he would not have transferred
the subsequent amounts. Moreover, it is discernible from
Annexure A complaint that the 2nd respondent paid the
above amounts to the petitioner on the firm belief that
the petitioner would repay the money within two years
along with bank interest. It was only after the petitioner
allegedly failed to repay the money that the 2nd
2026:KER:15583
respondent felt deceived and cheated. Thus the above
act of the petitioner, according to me, does not attract
the basic ingredient of the offence under Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code.
14. After bestowing anxious consideration to
the facts and materials on record, the law on the point
and the rival submissions made across the Bar, I am
satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent
powers of this Court under 528 of the BNSS because
even if the allegations in Annexure A complaint are taken
on their face value, the same would not attract the
offence under Section 420 IPC.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the
Crl.M.C, by quashing Annexure A complaint and all
further proceedings in C.C No.505/2024 of the Trial
Court as against the petitioner.
Sd/-
Srs/18.02.2026 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
2026:KER:15583
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 11 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C. NO.
505 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, MAVELIKKARA
DATED 14/11/2023
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF CW1 ON
15..11..2023
Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2024
PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT - MAVELIKKARA.
Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMON ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER FROM JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT - 1, MAVELIKKARA. DATED
2/9/2024
