IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 610 of 2006() ------------------------ CC.1238/2002 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 & 2: ----------------------------- 1. K. MOHANKUMAR, ARYATT HOUSE, PANAYIL P.O., NOORANAD, ALAPPLUZHA DISTRICT. 2. PRASANNA KUMARI, W/O. K. MOHANKUMAR, ARYATT HOUSE, PANAYIL P.O., NOORANAD, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. MUTHOOT CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., MUTHOOT BUILDINGS, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA,J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 610 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th October, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed to quash Annexure-III charge sheet and the further proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 2. A complaint was filed by the third respondent herein alleging that an application was submitted by both the accused on 16.1.2001 for taking loan for purchase of a motorcycle and a hire purchase agreement was executed with the complainant on 19.1.2001. Rs.43,109/- was given as hire purchase loan to the accused and a motorcycle was also purchased in the name of the first accused. But, they defaulted payment of the instalments, in violation of the terms and conditions. Only two instalments were paid. It is also understood that they have sold the vehicle to some other person without the consent or knowledge of the complainant and thereby they committed offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 424 and 427 read with 34 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet is filed alleging offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. But, on a reading of Annexure-III, it is only revealed that there was breach of terms of an agreement executed between the accused and the complainant. On going through the documents, complaint and Annexure-III charge sheet, it appears that an agreement Crl.M.C.610/2006 2 was allegedly executed between the parties and a hire purchase loan was granted in favour of the accused for purchase of a motorcycle. But, they failed to pay the instalments in accordance with the terms of agreement and thereby they allegedly cheated the complainant. Learned counsel for petitioner also cited decision reported in Abdul Rahim v. The Inspector of Police (1992 Crl.L.J.370) in support of the contentions. 4. On a reading of Sections 415 and 420 IPC, I find that allegations made in the charge are not sufficient to constitute offence under Section 420 IPC. The respondents could not substantiate that the alleged offences are attracted in this case. A mere breach of contract will not be an offence. What is relevant is the intention of the accused at the inception of the transaction. Such intentions are not revealed from the documents produced. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that it is only just and proper that the charge is quashed in the interest of justice. 5. In the result, Annexure-III, charge sheet is quashed and the further proceedings against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.