IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1267 of 2003 -------------------------------- CC.409/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- JOY JOSEPH, S/O.KIDANGATH CHACKALACKAL JOSEPH, T.C.32/633, KARIMPATTA THOPE, CHIYARAM DESOM, CHIYARAM VILLAGE, TRICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TC 20/621/62, PUTHOOR ROAD, NADATHARA VILLAGE, ANCHERI DESOM, TRICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN SMT.USHA NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAJU JOHN, S/O.JOHN, MANJALI HOUSE, UNITY ROAD, KURIACHIRA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, TRICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.1267 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May 2008 ORDER Petitioner who has been arraigned as the accused in Annexure Q complaint, filed by respondent No.2 herein before the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur, has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure seeking to quash the above proceedings pending against him. The learned Magistrate has issued process against the petitioner to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The gist of the allegations as discernible from Annexure- Q complaint is that petitioner had cheated the complainant by getting an assignment deed executed in his favour in respect of 15 cents of land belonging to the complainant suppressing the real value of the property. According to the complainant, the property with the building therein was agreed to be purchased by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs). However, when the document was got executed, the value of the Crl.M.C.No.1267 OF 2003 :: 2 :: property was shown as Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that the petitioner/accused had not even paid the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to him. I do not deem it necessary to refer to or deal with the other averments or allegations in Annexure Q complaint at this stage, elaborately. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the complainant had executed an agreement for sale in his favour of in respect of the property referred to above. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.2,00,000/-. A copy of the said agreement which was admittedly executed between the petitioner and the complainant is on record as Annexure C. The said agreement is seen to have been executed on May 21, 1999. It is beyond controversy that the assignment deed in respect of the said property was executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioner and it was got registered before the Sub Registry Office at Kuttanalloor on June 17, 1999. A copy of the said assignment deed has also been produced as Annexure E. It is revealed from Annexure E that the value of the property was shown as Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further seen that the said amount had been received by the complainant from the petitioner/assignee. Crl.M.C.No.1267 OF 2003 :: 3 :: 4. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexure-Q complaint is a clear instance of abuse of process. He points out that the allegations made in Annexure Q complaint are entirely within the realm of a civil dispute. It is further contended by the learned counsel that petitioner was put in possession of the property immediately after execution of the assignment deed. 5. The complainant had filed a complaint before the Police (Annexure-O) on December 10, 2001 with the above allegations of cheating etc. The Police had referred the case and filed Annexure P report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur. In the said report, the investigating officer had noted that a civil case was pending between the parties in respect of the same issue and also that no criminal offence was made out from the complaint. 6. It has been brought to my notice that the complainant has filed P.O.P.8/2001 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur praying for a declaration that Annexure E assignment deed is sham and null and void. It is aubmitted by learned counsel on either side that the said petition has been listed for Crl.M.C.No.1267 OF 2003 :: 4 :: trial in the month of June 2008. A copy of the plaint in the above suit is on record as Anenxure N. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, I find considerable force in the contention raised by the petitioner that the criminal proceeding initiated against him at the instance of the complainant is totally misconceived and a clear instance of abuse of process. Since the dispute between the parties is admittedly pending before the competent civil court, I do not propose to make any observations on the merit of the rival contentions of the parties. Suffice it to say that the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner is totally misconceived and unsustainable. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash the above proceedings. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.409/02 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur are quashed. Criminal M.C. is allowed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.M.C.No.1267 OF 2003 :: 5 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.1267 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER Dated 30th May 2008