INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICER.NARAYANAPISHARADI
MONDAY,THE20THDAYOFMAY2019/30THVAISAKHA,1941
Crl.MC.No.2637of2014
AGAINSTCC2428/2012ofJUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS,
IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER/ACCUSEDNO.2:
ANEEPKUMAR
S/O.GOPI,KIZHUVAKKALHOUSE,POOTHOLES.N.PARK
DESOM,ARAMATTUKARAVILLAGE,THRISSURDISTRICT.
BYADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYABHANU(SR.)
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.VIPINNARAYAN
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTOCOMPLAINANTSTATE:
1JOSE
S/O.POULOSE,MOOTHEDAMHOUSE,KODALYDESOM,
MATTATHURVILLAGE,THRISSUR-680684.
2STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR,HIGHCOURT
OFKERALA,ERNAKULAM682031.
BYADV.SRI.T.N.MANOJFORR1
PUBLICPROSECUTORSMT.K.K.SHEEBAFORR2
THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGBEENFINALLYHEARDON
01.04.2019THECOURTON20.05.2019PASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014
2
R.NARAYANAPISHARADI,J
************************
Crl.M.C.No.2637of2014
——————————————–
Datedthisthe20thdayofMay,2019
ORDER
Thepetitioneristhesecondaccusedinthecase
C.C.No.2428/2012pendingonthefileoftheCourtoftheJudicial
FirstClassMagistrate,Irinjalakkuda.Theallegationagainsthim
isthathecommittedtheoffencespunishableunderSections406
andSection420readwith34SectionI.P.C.Thepetitionisfiledbyhimtoquash
Annexure-Achargesheetandallfurtherproceedingsbasedonit
pendingagainsthiminthecourt,byinvokingthepowerofthis
CourtunderSection482oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973
(hereinafterreferredtoas’theCode’).
2.Theprosecutioncaseisasfollows:Thefirstaccused
ShabeerAliwasconductinganinstitutionbyname’OnBoard
AviationAcademy’offeringcoursestogetjobsasAirHostess,
CabinCrew,AirportGroundHandlingetc.Theinstitution
Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014
3
conductedbythefirstaccusedhadnolicenceorpermission
obtainedfromthegovernment.But,theaccusedmadethe
studentstobelievethatitwasaninstitutionrecognisedbythe
governmentandthattheinstitutionhadgottie-upwithairports
atDubai,SingaporeandMalaysiaandthatpracticaltraining
wouldbegivenattheCochinInternationalAirportat
Nedumbasseryforonedayeveryweekandalsoattheairportsin
Dubai,SingaporeandMalaysiaandaftercompletingthecourse,
thestudentswouldbegivenjobinanyofthoseairports.Thefirst
accusedobtainedanamountofRs.63,500/-fromthedaughterof
thedefactocomplainant.Healsoobtainedatotalamountof
Rs.57,62,500/-fromotherstudents.Hetook26studentsto
Malaysiapromisingthattheywouldbegivenpracticaltrainingat
theairport.But,leavingthestudentsthere,heleftMalaysia.The
firstaccuseddidnotreturntheamountobtainedbyhimfromthe
students.Therefore,theaccusedhavecommittedtheoffences
punishableunderSections406and420readwith34I.P.C.
3.Thecaseagainsttheaccusedwasregisteredonthe
basisofthefirstinformationstatementgiventothepolicebythe
Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014
4
firstrespondent,whoisthefatherofastudentbyname
Amrutha.Aftercompletingtheinvestigationofthecase,the
policefiledchargesheetagainsttheaccusedfortheoffences
mentionedabove.LearnedMagistratetookcognizanceofthe
offencesandthecasewastakenonfileasC.C.No.2428/2012.
4.Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitionerandthe
learnedPublicProsecutorandalsothelearnedcounselforthe
firstrespondent.
5.Learnedcounselforthepetitionercontendedthat
thereisabsolutelynomaterialproducedbytheprosecution
againstthepetitioner.Learnedcounselcontendedthatthereis
nothingtoshowthatthepetitionerhad,inanymanner,induced
anystudenttopartwithanyamount.Learnedcounselwould
submitthatthepetitionerwasonlyatutorintheinstitution
conductedbythefirstaccusedandthathehadnoroleinthe
administrationandmanagementoftheinstitution.
6.Theallegationagainstthepetitioneristhathe
committedtheoffencespunishableunderSections406andSection420
readwith34SectionI.P.C.Theingredientsoftheoffenceofcheating
Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014
5
punishableunderSection420I.P.Cshallbeexaminedinthis
context.
7.Section415oftheIndianPenalCodereadsasfollows:
“415.Cheating.-Whoever,bydeceiving
anyperson,fraudulentlyordishonestlyinduces
thepersonsodeceivedtodeliveranyproperty
toanyperson,ortoconsentthatanyperson
shallretainanyproperty,orintentionally
inducesthepersonsodeceivedtodooromit
todoanythingwhichhewouldnotdooromit
ifhewerenotsodeceived,andwhichactor
omissioncausesorislikelytocausedamage
orharmtothatpersoninbody,mind,
reputationorproperty,issaidto”cheat”.
8.Theingredientstoconstituteanoffenceofcheating
areasfollows:(i)thereshouldbefraudulentordishonest
inducementofapersonbydeceivinghim;(ii)(a)thepersonso
inducedshouldbeintentionallyinducedtodeliveranypropertyto
anypersonortoconsentthatanypersonshallretainany
property,or(b)thepersonsoinducedshouldbeintentionally
inducedtodoortoomittodoanythingwhichhewouldnotdoor
omitifhewerenotsodeceived;and(iii)incasescoveredby(ii)
Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014
6
(b)above,theactoromissionshouldbeonewhichcausedoris
likelytocausedamageorharmtothepersoninducedinbody,
mind,reputationorproperty.Afraudulentordishonest
inducementisanessentialingredientoftheoffenceofcheating.
9.Section420oftheIndianPenalCodereadsasfollows:
“420.Cheatinganddishonestlyinducing
deliveryofproperty.-Whoevercheatsand
therebydishonestlyinducestheperson
deceivedtodeliveranypropertytoanyperson,
ortomake,alterordestroythewholeorany
partofavaluablesecurity,oranythingwhichis
signedorsealed,andwhichiscapableofbeing
convertedintoavaluablesecurity,shallbe
punishedwithimprisonmentofeither
descriptionforatermwhichmayextendto
sevenyears,andshallalsobeliabletofine.”
10.TheingredientstoconstituteanoffenceunderSection
420I.P.Carethefollowing:(i)apersonmustcommitthe
offenceofcheatingunderSection415I.P.C;and(ii)theperson
cheatedmustbedishonestlyinducedto(a)deliverpropertyto
anyperson;or(b)make,alterordestroyvaluablesecurityor
anythingsignedorsealedandcapableofbeingconvertedinto
Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014
7
valuablesecurity.Cheatingisanessentialingredientforanactto
constitutetheoffencepunishableunderSection420I.P.C.
11.Admittedly,theinstitutioninvolvedwasconductedby
thefirstaccused.Thereisnoallegationagainstthepetitioner
thathehadanyroleinthemanagementoradministrationofthe
institutionconductedbythefirstaccused.Hewasa
tutor/instructorintheinstitution.Thereisalsonoallegationthat
thepetitionerhadobtainedmoneyfromanystudent.
12.However,thecrucialquestioniswhetherthereis
materialtoshowthatthepetitionerhaddishonestlyinducedany
studenttopartwithmoneytothefirstaccusedortojointhe
institution.Learnedcounselforthepetitionerwouldsubmitthat
noneofthewitnesseshasgivenanystatementtothepoliceto
theeffectthatthepetitionerhadmadeanysuchinducement.
Thissubmissionappearstobenotcorrect.Ihaveperusedthe
copyofthechargesheetfiledinthecaseandalsothecopyof
thestatementsofthewitnessesrecordedbythepolice.Atleast
threewitnesses,bynameFarris(CW9),Arjun(CW18)and
Sujisha,havegivenstatementtothepoliceregardingthe
Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014
8
inducementmadebythepetitionertojointheinstitutionrunby
thefirstaccused.ThewitnessFarrishasgivenstatementtothe
policethatthepetitionertoldhimthattheinstitutionhadlicence
andthathecouldjointheinstitutionwithoutanyhesitation.The
witnessArjunhasgivenstatementtothepolicethatthe
petitionertoldhimthattheinstitutionhadlicenceandthat
trainingwouldbegivenintheairportsforamonthifhejoined
theinstitution.ThewitnessSujishahasgivenstatementtothe
policethatthepetitionertoldherthattheinstitutionhasgot
licence.Inthesecircumstances,itcannotbefoundthatthereis
absolutelynomaterialagainstthepetitionerproducedbythe
prosecutiontoprovethathehascommittedanoffence
punishableunderSection420I.P.C.Thequestionwhetherthe
petitionerhadanydishonestintentionornotinmakingthe
aforesaidrepresentationtothestudentsisamatterofevidence.
ItisnotamattertobedecidedbythisCourtinapetitionfiled
underSection482oftheCode.
13.Itisstatedinthepetitionthatthepetitionerjoinedthe
institutionrunbythefirstaccusedonlyinMay,2011asan
Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014
9
Instructorbutthefirstaccusedhadcollectedamountsfrom
studentsbyApril,2011andtherefore,theprosecutioncase
againstthepetitionerisnottrue.Inapetitionfiledunder
Section482oftheCode,suchpleasofdefencemadebythe
accusedcannotbeconsidered.
14.Ofcourse,thereisnoallegationagainstthepetitioner
thathereceivedmoneyfromanystudent.Therefore,itis
doubtfulwhethertheoffencepunishableunderSection406I.P.C
wouldlieagainsthim.Thecaseisatthetrialstageandthisisa
pleawhichhecanraisebeforethetrialcourt.
15.OncefinalreportissubmittedunderSection173ofthe
Code,iftheaccusedisaggrieved,normally,heshallberelegated
toapproachtheMagistratefordischarge(SectionSeeSauSaraswatibai
v.Lalitabai(2019(1)KLD650(SC).Atthisjuncture,itisto
benotedthatthetrialcourthadframedchargeagainstboth
accusedinthecasefortheoffencespunishableunderSections
406andSection420readwith34SectionI.P.Cevenbeforethefilingofthis
petitionunderunderSection482oftheCode.Thepetitionerhas
nocasethathehadfiledanyapplicationfordischargeunder
Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014
10
Section239oftheCode.Healsodidnotchallengethecharge
framedagainsthimbythetrialcourt.
16.InMohitaliasSectionSonuv.StateofU.P:AIR2013SC
2248,theApexCourthasheldasfollows:
“SofarastheinherentpoweroftheHighCourtas
containedinSection482ofCr.P.Cisconcerned,the
lawinthisregardissetatrestbythisCourtina
catenaofdecisions.However,wewouldliketo
reiteratethatwhenanorder,notinterlocutoryin
nature,canbeassailedintheHighCourtinrevisional
jurisdiction,thenthereshouldbeabarininvokingthe
inherentjurisdictionoftheHighCourt.Inotherwords,
inherentpoweroftheCourtcanbeexercisedwhen
thereisnoremedyprovidedinSectiontheCodeofCriminal
Procedureforredressalofthegrievance.Itiswell
settledthatinherentpoweroftheCourtcanordinarily
beexercisedwhenthereisnoexpressprovisioninSectionthe
Codeunderwhichorderimpugnedcanbechallenged”.
17.InPadalVenkataRamaReddyaliasRamuv.
KovvuriSatyanarayanaReddy:(2011)12SCC437,ithas
beenheldasfollows:
“Itiswellsettledthattheinherentpowersunder
Section482canbeexercisedonlywhennoother
remedyisavailabletothelitigantandnotina
Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014
11situationwhereaspecificremedyisprovidedbythe
statute.Itcannotbeusedifitisinconsistentwith
specificprovisionsprovidedunderSectiontheCode.Ifan
effectivealternativeremedyisavailable,theHigh
Courtwillnotexerciseitspowersunderthissection,
speciallywhentheapplicantmaynothaveavailedof
thatremedy”.
18.True,nothinginSectiontheCodecircumscribesorlimitsthe
powerofthisCourtunderSection482oftheCode.But,whenthe
accusedapproachesthisCourtwithapetitionunderSection482
oftheCodetoquashtheprosecutionagainsthim,without
availingtheusualremedyprovidedunderSectiontheCode,hemust
satisfythisCourtthatallowingtheproceedingtocontinuewould
beanabuseoftheprocessofthecourtorthattheendsofjustice
requirethattheproceedingoughttobequashed.Hemustshow
thattheproceedingsagainsthimarenothingbutaweaponof
harassmentorpersecution.Thereisnosuchsituationhere.
Thereisnomeritinthispetitionanditisliabletobedismissed.
Consequently,thepetitionisdismissed.
(sd/-)
R.NARAYANAPISHARADI,JUDGE
jsr/17/05/2019
Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014
12
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS:
ANNEXUREP1ANNEXURE-A:TRUECOPYOFTHECHARGE
SHEETINC.C.NO.2428OF2012OFTHE
COURTOFJUDICIALFIRSTCLASS
MAGISTRATE,IRINJALAKUDA.
RESPONDENTS’EXHIBITS:
NIL
TRUECOPY
PSTOJUDGE