SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anju Hamza vs State Of Kerala on 23 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

WEDNESDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 3RD MAGHA, 1940

Crl.MC.No. 4552 of 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 818/2016 of
J.M.F.C.-I, KOZHIKODE

CRIME NO. 314/2018 OF Thamarassery Police Station ,
Kozhikode

PETITIONER/S:

1 ANJU HAMZA
S/O. HAMZA, AGED 41 YEARS, MANADATHU
HOUSE,THAYIKKATTUKARA, CHOORNIKKARA VILLAGE,
ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

2 ANVER SHAW,
AGED 50 YEARS, MANADATHU HOUSE,
THAYIKKATTUKARA,CHOORNIKKARA VILLAGE, ALUVA
TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY POLICE
STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 573.

3 K.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 62,
S/O BALAKRISHNAN , HILL GARDEN HOUSE
KUTTANALLOOR.P.O., THRISSUR-680014
(ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 18/07/18 IN CRL.M.A.7498/2018)

BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR

OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.S HRITHWIK,SR.PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 4552 of 2018

-2-

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in Crime

No.314/2018 of Thamarassery Police Station

registered for the offence punishable under

Section 420 r/w Section 34 IPC.

2. The prosecution allegation can be

briefly stated thus:-

A property having an extent of 14 acre

and 15 cents in Engapuzha village was

purchased by the defacto complainant/3rd

respondent herein and his son as per

document 2574/2014 of SRO Thamarassery on

25.06.2014. The said registration was done

by the first petitioner and his lawyer. His

lawyer prepared the document and the

document was registered. Thereafter, the
Crl.MC.No. 4552 of 2018

-3-

defacto complainant left for abroad. Even

though, the defacto complainant requested

the first petitioner very many times to

handover the original document collected by

him from the SRO, that was not done. When

the de-facto complainant and the mediators

contacted the first petitioner over

telephone, he stated that he would give the

documents only on payment of an amount of

Rs.25 lakh.

3. The second petitioner is the uncle of

the first petitioner, who has been arraigned

as an accused on the allegation that the

first petitioner had told the defacto

complainant that the document was with the

second petitioner.

Crl.MC.No. 4552 of 2018

-4-

4. On the said allegations, Annexure-A2

complaint was filed by the defacto

complainant before the Court of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class-1, Thamarassery.

The learned Magistrate forwarded the said

complaint to the police for investigation

and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, Annexure-A1 crime was

registered.

5. The petitioners have filed this

Crl.M.C. praying for quashing the FIR and

further proceedings against the petitioners

in the above said case.

6. Heard.

7. The learned counsel for the

petitioners has submitted that since there
Crl.MC.No. 4552 of 2018

-5-

is absolutely no material before the court

to constitute the ingredients of the offence

under Section 420 r/w Section 34 IPC, the

investigation against the petitioners cannot

be justified.

8. The learned counsel for the third

respondent, on the other hand, has submitted

that since there is entrustment, the offence

under Section 406 IPC would be attracted.

9. I have gone through Annexure-A2

complaint. There is no allegation that the

property was not registered in the name of

the third respondent and his son. The only

allegation is that eventhough the original

document was collected by the first

petitioner, that was not given to the third
Crl.MC.No. 4552 of 2018

-6-

respondent. The only allegation against the

second petitioner is that the first

petitioner told the third respondent that he

had handed over the original document to the

second petitioner.

10. Having gone through the averments in

Annexure-A2 complaint, I am satisfied that

there is absolutely no allegation in

Annexure-A2 to constitute the ingredients of

the offence under Section 420 IPC or the

offence under Section 406 IPC. On the other

hand, having gone through Annexure-A2

complaint, I am satisfied that the dispute

involved in this case is purely civil in

nature.

11. In the said circumstances, the
Crl.MC.No. 4552 of 2018

-7-

registration of FIR and further proceedings

against the petitioners cannot be justified.

In the said circumstances, I am inclined to

quash the FIR and further proceedings

against the petitioners in Crime No.314/2018

of Thamarassery Police Station, in exercise

of the inherent power under Section 482

Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice. It

is ordered accordingly.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands

allowed.

Sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,
JUDGE
STK
//TRUE COPY//

//P.A. TO JUDGE//
Crl.MC.No. 4552 of 2018

-8-

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE -1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 314/2018 OF
THAMARASSERY POLICY STATION, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
THAMARASSERY

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED
14-07-2014 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE FIRST
PETITIONER AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
ALONG WITH ONE MR. ASHRAF MUHAMMED

ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED
EXECUTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER AND
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 20-04-2012

ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 30-11-

2009 IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT AND FIRST PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 10-02-

2011 IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT AND FIRST PETITIONER HEREIN

ANNEXURE 7 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED IN
THE NAME OF THE FIRM OF DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT AND FIRST PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

STK

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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