IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3344 of 2004() ------------------------- C.C.NO.210/99 OF ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- K.G.GEORGE, GEORGE TOWN, NAGAPPA NAGAR EXTN., SINGALOOR, COIMBATORE, NOW RESIDING AT KUMARAKOM, 34/1215/A1, ANCHUMANA, SATHYAVAN LANE, EDAPPALLY, KOCH-24. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------- 1. FRANCIS CLEETUS, T.C.13/10, CLIFF HOUSE, PETTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.ALPHONSE, TC.34/636, BEENA BHAVAN, VETTUCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE, REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.14490/04 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3344/04 DISMISSED 08.08.08 SD/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.3344 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.210/99 pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthauram. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under section 420 of IPC and the same was initiated against him on the basis of the private complaint filed by the first respondent herein, copy of which is produced as Annexure 1. The learned Magistrate after taking sworn statement of the complainant , posted the case to 24.4.2004. At that stage, a stay order has been passed by this Court as per order dated 20.12.2004. The prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to quash Annexure-1 private complaint and the consequent proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.210/99 pending before the concerned court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and for the first respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for Crl.M.C.NO.3344/04 -2- the petitioner that the petitioner is a film director and the first respondent/complainant is the producer of the film ‘Elavankode Desom’. It was agreed by the petitioner and the first respondent who entered into the agreement, copy of which is produced as Annexure-2, that the complainant would finance the film by paying Rs.24 lakhs and pursuant to that agreement, the complainant had paid Rs.13 lakhs in two instalments on 21.2.1998 and 27.2.1998 for which two receipts were already handed over and the same were produced by the complainant along with Annexure-1 complaint. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire allegations in Annexure-1 complaint are false and fabricated stories of the first respondent and the petitioner did not agree to transfer the property as mentioned in the complaint in favour of the complainant and that no ingredients are there to constitute an offence under section 420 IPC. Further, the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as the accused to wreak vengeance on him due to the reason that the film was flopped for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and due to the financial loss sustained by the complainant. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that sufficient ingredients are there to attract the offence Crl.M.C.NO.3344/04 -3- under section 420 of IPC and the learned Magistrate after taking sworn statement of the complainant found that prima face case is made out against the petitioner and further proceedings were initiated against him. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to dismiss this petition. 5. On a perusal of the complaint, Annexure-1, it is revealed that the complainant and the accused were known to each other and were friends and thick friendship was created between them as the film producer and the director of the film ‘Elavankode Desom’. The complaint made in Annexure-1 is that the accused dishonestly induced the complainant that he is ready to sell the property and the building owned by the accused for an amount of Rs.40 lakhs to the complainant and received an amount of Rs.13 lakhs in two instalments as per receipts dated 21.2.1998 and 27.2.1998, originals of which were produced along with Annexure-1 complaint before the concerned court. The contention raised by the petitioner/accused that the amount of Rs.13 lakhs received by him was for the purpose to meet the production expenses of the film Elavankode Desom as mentioned in clause of 5 of Annexure-2 and for that reason no agreement has been executed between the parties. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, no agreement was insisted to be executed by parting the Crl.M.C.NO.3344/04 -4- amount to the accused for the reason that they were friends. Thereby the accused dishonestly induced the complainant to believe that he is ready to sell his property in favour of the complainant. All these matters are in dispute between the parties and in respect of which evidence can be let in before the concerned court by both parties. There is nothing to suggest that this complaint was filed by the first respondent as per Annexure-1 before the lower court to wreak vengeance against the petitioner as alleged in this petition. Thus, it is revealed that the proceedings in C.C.210/99 is initiated against the petitioner herein by the learned Magistrate only after convincing that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/accused. In the circumstances, I find that the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in this case and the petition is devoid of merit. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case at the earliest, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn