IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 403 of 2008() --------------------------------- CRIME NO.512/2007 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION. .................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- GEETHA DEVI, D/O. SAVITHRI AMMA, PRIYANGA BHAVAN, VEMBAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN MR.K.SATHEESH KUMAR. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.403 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 10th day of September,2009 ORDER Petitioner the accused in Crime No.512/2007 on the file of Venjeramoodu Police Station filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the F.I.R and all further proceedings pursuant to it. Annexure-I F.I.R is registered on the sworn statement of the de facto complainant. As seen from Annexure II F.I. Statement the case is that on 14.11.2005 an agreement for sale was entered into by the petitioner with Ahammadali, the de facto complainant whereunder after receiving an advance of Rs.17,000/- towards consideration of the property, petitioner agreed to execute a sale deed in respect of her 10 cents of property within a period of three months. The defacto complainant contended that though he was prepared to pay the balance consideration ande to get the sale deed executed, petitioner with a dishonest intention to cheat did not execute the sale deed and thereby committed the offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Case of the petitioner is Crl.M.C.403/2008 2 that ingredients of an offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted on the allegations in the F.I statement and therefore it is to be quashed. 2. It is seen that eventhough the petition was filed as early as on 28.1.2008 and the petition was admitted, no order of stay was granted. Therefore the investigation was allowed to be continued. When the F.I.R is to be quashed, necessarily petitioner has to implead the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant was not impleaded. Instead only the State was impleaded in the petition. In such circumstance, I find no necessity to quash Annexure I F.I.R as sought for. If after investigation the final report is submitted and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate, petitioner is at liberty to seek an order of discharge from the learned Magistrate under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. If final report is not filed, petitioner is at liberty either to challenge the final report on its filing, before this court or to seek an order of discharge from the learned Magistrate. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- Crl.M.C.403/2008 3 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006