IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2422 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.127/2010 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... (CRIME NO.198/2009 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION) ........ PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- PONNAMMA. B. PILLAI, AGED 68, W/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, THEVALAKATTU HOUSE VAIKOM TALUK, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM POLICE STATION, VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT). 2. KRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, 'KRISHNENDU' VAIKOM TALUK,KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU R2 BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER, SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.2422 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 10th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.198 of 2009 of Vaikom Police Station and C.C. No.127 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom for offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings against her. Case in short is that petitioner sold 15 cents out of total extent of land belonged to her to the first respondent/de facto complainant in the year 1972 and later, petitioner sold the remaining extent belonging to her allegedly including the said 15 cents also to a company, the officials of which are accused 2 and 3 in the case. Allegation of the first respondent is that by the said conduct petitioner and accused 2 and 3 have cheated the first respondent and thereby committed offence aforesaid. I have heard learned counsel on both sides and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that even on the face of the allegations no offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the IPC is involved. Learned counsel for first respondent however stood by the complaint and final report. CRL.M.C. No.2422 of 2010 -: 2 :- 3. As aforesaid, allegation is only that petitioner/first accused sold 15 cents in 1972 to first respondent and according to the first respondent, in the year 2008 petitioner sold the remaining extent including the said 15 cents also to a company. According to the first respondent he was put in possession of the said 15 cents in the year 1972 itself, on the date of petitioner is said to have sold the the said 15 cents to him. 4. Section 415 of the IPC says that whoever by deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body,mind, reputation or property is said to cheat. In the case on hand, sale of 15 cents to the first respondent by the petitioner was in the year 1972. There is no case that there was any fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the petitioner at that time. I am unable to understand how the subsequent sale of property to the company in the year 2008, assuming that it takes in the said 15 cents sold to the first respondent in 1972 also, would amount to CRL.M.C. No.2422 of 2010 -: 3 :- fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the first respondent. I am also unable to understand what exactly is the delivery of the property made by the first respondent in the year 2008 to attract offence under Sec.415 of the IPC. 5. On hearing counsel on both sides and the learned Public Prosecutor and perusing the complaint, I am satisfied that no offence as stated in Sec.415 of the IPC punishable under Sec.420 of the IPC is made out against petitioner even if the case of first respondent as a whole is accepted. Resultantly Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.198 of Vaikom Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and all proceeding against petitioner in C.C. No.127 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv