IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 378 of 2011() ------------------------ CRIME NO.54 OF 2011 OF THE MEDICAL C0OLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER(S): -------------------- C.P.DAVID, S/O.C.D.PAUL, CHIRAMMEL HOUSE, CHELAVVUR P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CELINE AUGUSTINE, W/O.AUGUSTINE, NOW RESIDING AT CHIRAMMEL HOUSE, CHELAVVUR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673571. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED 673008 THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 378 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the accused in Crime No.54 of 2011 of the Medical College Police Station (FIR in that case is pending in the Court of learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Marad Cases) Kozhikode ) offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code. On the strength of a private complaint filed by respondent No.1, police registered the case. Annexure-F is the FIR. According to respondent No.1 she is residing in a portion of the house belonging to the petitioner from 17.5.2010 onwards on giving Rs.4 lakhs by way of security. While so, petitioner is said to have promised to sell the building to her and on that representation, collected about Rs.62½ lakhs from respondent No.1 on several occasions. Later, petitioner is said to have refused to transfer the building or return the money. Petitioner had threatened her to kill if she did not vacate the house. 2. Petitioner has a different version. He would say that on the request of respondent No.1, he opted for an LIC policy and issued cheque for Rs.10 lakhs to respondent No.1 towards the policy. That cheque was encashed by the LIC on 18.9.2010. Petitioner was not issued any receipt for the said amount. Petitioner asked respondent Crl.MC.378/11 2 No.1 about the matter, but she evaded. On 18.12.2010 petitioner addressed Annexure-A letter to the LIC. In answer to that, petitioner got Annexure-C letter stating that the matter is under enquiry. Petitioner also preferred a complaint to the City Police Commissioner, Kozhikode alleging about the above stated conduct of respondent No.1. Learned counsel submitted that it is to escape from Annexure E complaint that the petitioner has preferred a false complaint against him. 3. Police has registered Annexure-F FIR against petitioner for offences above stated and the matter is under investigation. I am sure that the officer investigating the case will look into all aspects of the matter and ascertain whether any offence is committed as alleged by respondent No.1. At this stage, I do not find reason for interference in this petition. But I make it clear that the investigating officer shall look into all aspects of the matter. With the above observation, this Crl.M.C is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the final report, if any, filed against him, as provided under the law. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE vgs Crl.MC.378/11 3