IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1195 of 2011() ------------------ CRIME NO. 215/2011 OF PALA POLICE STATION ................ PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 : -------------------------------------------- SHINTO, S/O.MICHAEL, AGED 48 YEARS, VALLANATTU HOUSE, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, ULLANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. LIJI. J. VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT / STATE & COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA POLICE STATION, PALA-686575. 3. RAJENDRAN, S/O.ARJUNAN, KANNALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ULLANADU P.O., BHARANANGANAM, PALA-689503. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 1195 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE - I : CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO. 215/11 DT. 11.3.11. ANNEXURE - II : PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 18.9.2004 REFERRED IN ANNEXURE-I FIR (EXECUTED BY ACCUSED NO.1 IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) ANNEXURE - III : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.3.2011 IN CRL.M.P. 1004/2011 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1195 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 17th day of June, 2011 ORDER Though, notice was issued to the third respondent, it was returned unclaimed. Vide order on Crl.M.A.No.3565 of 2011 service on third respondent has been declared complete. 2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.215 of 2011 of Pala Police Station for offence punishable under Sec.420 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC”). That case was registered on the information (Annexure-A1) given by the third respondent to the Pala police. Based on that information, police registered the case against petitioner and his mother, the first accused. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the contention that allegations in the first information statement are not sufficient to constitute offence against him. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. I have gone through Annexure-A1, FIS given by the third respondent to the police. The gist of that statement is that the third respondent had purchased certain property from the first accused as per a sale deed dated 18.09.2004 executed by Crl.M.C.No.1195 of 2011 -: 2 :- the first accused. Later, third respondent learned that the said property takes in puramboke land over which the first accused had no right whatsoever. Thereon, there was a mediation talk between the first accused and third respondent. In that mediation talk first accused agreed to purchase some property and give 4 cents to the third respondent. While so, petitioner (son of the accused) came from abroad and suggested to his mother that no alternate property could be given to the third respondent (compensating the third respondent for the puramboke land allegedly conveyed by the first accused). Pursuant to that suggestion of petitioner, first accused withdrew from the settlement. Thus, it is alleged that petitioner and first accused committed offence under Sec.420 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC. 4. On going through Annexure-A1, I fail to understand how petitioner could be said to have committed any offence under Sec.420 of the IPC, even if it is assumed that he has dissuaded his mother from purchasing another item of property and assigning the same to the petitioner. The alleged act of petitioner even if accepted would not come within the purview of cheating as defined under Sec.415 of the IPC since there was no fraudulent or dishonest representation made by the petitioner to Crl.M.C.No.1195 of 2011 -: 3 :- the third respondent and at any rate any delivery of property by the third respondent to the petitioner. As such the FIR registered against petitioner/second accused is liable to be quashed. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.215 of 2011 of the Pala Police Station to the extent it concerned petitioner/second accused is quashed. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case against the first accused. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-