IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 49 of 2011() ----------------------- CRIME NO.634/2010 OF WALAYAR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------- M.KAJAHUSSAIN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, ACHIKULATHIL HOUSE, CHANDRAPURAM, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MOHANAN, S/O.RAMADAS, KUTTIKKAD PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHITTISSERY P.O., NENMANIKKAVU VILLAGE, AAMBALLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.49 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.634 of 2010 of Walayar Police Station seeking to quash Annexure-A, first information report registered for offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”) against him and accused No.1. It is contended by learned counsel that none of the ingredients of offence under Section 420 of the Code is available in Annexure-B, first information statement or Annexure-A, first information report and that registration of the case is an abuse of the process of law. It is also contended that to attract the offence under Section 420 of the Code there must be allegation that there was intention to deceive which is conspicuously absent in this case. At any rate it is contended that respondent No.2, the defacto complainant has no complaint that he paid the money allegedly demanded and hence no offence punishable under Section 420 of the Code is made out. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are sufficient allegations in Annexures-A and B, the case is at the stage of investigation and is not required to be interfered under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”). 2. The Supreme Court has time and again alerted the courts that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly to quash the Crl.M.C. No.49/2011 2 registration of case, only when it is revealed that registration of cases and subsequent proceedings would only be an abuse of process of law and when the allegations if accepted as a whole made out no offence. The question is whether such a situation is brought out on the facts of the case. According to respondent No.2, he had booked a lorry load of marble from Karnataka State through accused No.1 and paid its price. Accused No.1 agreed to supply marble at the place of respondent No.2 in Kerala. On 22.12.2010 the lorry carrying marble reached sales tax check post at Walayar and petitioner informed respondent No.2 through mobile phone bearing No.9446689587 that lorry has reached Walayar sales tax check post, it was found (obviously by the sales tax authorities) that the lorry is carrying excess marble and hence a sum of `.10,000/- has to be paid by way of fine. On hearing that, respondent No.2 came down to Walayar check post on 23.12.2010 and on enquiry it was revealed that no such lorry had even reached Walayar check post on 22.12.2010 and no such incident as stated by petitioner had happened. Respondent No.2 was satisfied that attempt of petitioner and accused No.1 was to cheat him by collecting `.10,000/- on the pretext of payment of fine. That information was conveyed to the local police by Annexure-B, based on which case was registered. On going through Annexures-A and B and the ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 415 of the Code at this stage I am unable to say that no offence as alleged is made out so that, this Court is required to interfere under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. Police has to investigate the case. If there was no payment of money as allegedly Crl.M.C. No.49/2011 3 required by petitioner and if there was only an attempt to cheat that is a matter which the police has to consider in the course of investigation. I do not find reason to interfere. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. Crl.M.A.No.124 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks