SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Aneep Kumar vs Jose on 20 May, 2019

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
11

situationwhereaspecificremedyisprovidedbythe
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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation