IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2007 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 787 of 2007() ------------------------ CRIME NO.158 OF 2007 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION C.M.P.1424/07 OF J.F.C.M, THALIPARAMBA ................. PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- K.V.VELAYUDHEN, S/O.KOYADAN CHOYIKUNIYIC, PARIYARAM AMSOM DESOM, AMMANAPARA, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST. 2. PUTHALATH PUSHPAVALLI, D/O NARAYANAN, MURIYATHODU, PATTUVAM AMSOM, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.787 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2007 ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of Crime No.158 of 2007 of Thaliparamba Police Station against him under Section 420 I.P.C. That crime has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had referred the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, a crime has been registered. Investigation has commenced. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court with a grievance that the allegations in Annexure-A1, even if, accepted in toto, will not in any way reveal the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. The entertainment of the complaint by the learned Magistrate and the passing of the order making reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C as also the consequent registration of the crime is working out injustice of the worst variety against the petitioner. There is transparent abuse of process of the Court. Even accepting the entire allegations in Annexure-A1, there is only a disputed money claim between the parties and the launching of a criminal prosecution on these facts is totally unjustified and legally unsustainable, argues the learned counsel for the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No.787 of 2007 2 3. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance. Arguments have been heard. 4. I have been taken through the averments in Annexure-A1 complaint in detail. Suffice it to say that I totally concur with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations, even if they were accepted in toto, can only reveal a disputed civil liability. No elements or ingredients of the offence of cheating are at all available in the allegations made. This is a classic case where the allegations in their totality do not reveal any offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. I do, in these circumstances, find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that continuation of the proceedings in the crime registered on the basis of Annexure-A1 deserves to be interdicted by invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent wants to raise an allegation that the husband of the 2nd respondent/complainant had committed suicide and the petitioner herein had abetted the commission of suicide. In Annexure-A1 complaint, there are no allegations to that effect. The counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent information received by the 2nd respondent/complainant indicates that the complainant's husband committed suicide and that the petitioner was responsible for abetment of commission of suicide by the complainant's husband. Crl.M.C.No.787 of 2007 3 6. Such an allegation has not been raised in Annexure-A1 complaint and needless to say that the quashing of the complaint shall have no bearing on such allegation which the respondent/complainant wants to raise in respect of the death/alleged suicide of her husband. Such an allegation, not raised in Annexure-A1, if it were to be raised now, will of course have to be considered carefully on its merit. 7. With the above observation, this Crl.M.C is, allowed. Crime No.158 of 2007 of Thaliparamba Police Station registered against the petitioner on the basis of Annexure-A1 complaint is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-