IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2300 of 2009(B) ------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.230/2009 OF PETTAH POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------- SANDYA N.S.DEV, D/O.SAHADEVAN, T.C.NO.30/1608, PUTHENKOVIL NADA VEEDU, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. AJAYAN, T.C.32/178, MADHAVAPURAM PUTHEN VEEDU, TITANIUM WARD, KADAKAMPALLI, TRIVANDRUM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR FOR R1 ADV.SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR SRI.G.SURARSHAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2300 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the defacto complainant in Crime No.230/2009 of Pettah Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code based on Annexure-A3 FIR, forwarded to the police by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A3 FIR. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and second respondent were heard. 3. As rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Annexure-A3 FIR establishes that the dispute between the petitioner and second respondent is purely civil in nature. There is no allegation in Annexure-A3 that petitioner, with a dishonest intention, entered into an agreement with the second respondent and thereby committed the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, as is clear from paragraph 13 of Annexure-A3, the CRMC 2300/09 2 allegation is that with an intention to make unlawful gain by cheating, within the period provided under Annexure-A1 agreement, second respondent was not permitted to put up the board and obtained rent from the second respondent and thereby enriched himself illegally to that extent and committed the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 4. In the absence of an allegation that there was dishonest intention to cheat at the instance of the second respondent, no offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is attracted. If the case of the second respondent is that in violation of the terms of Annexure-A1 agreement, he was prevented from installing the board and thereby he could not enjoy the benefit provided under Annexure-A1 agreement and sustained any loss, he is entitled to seek the civil remedy. But, when ingredients of an offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not at all attracted, Annexure-A3 FIR can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. Annexure-A3 FIR is quashed. 9th September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv