SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Crime No.1184/2013 Of Ernakulam … vs By Advs on 6 June, 2019

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICER.NARAYANAPISHARADI

THURSDAY,THE06THDAYOFJUNE2019/16THJYAISHTA,1941

Crl.MC.No.6261of2014

CC1028/2014ofADDITIONALCHIEFJUDICIALMAGISTRATE(ECONOMIC
OFFENCES),ERNAKULAM

CRIMENO.1184/2013OFErnakulamNorthPoliceStation,Ernakulam

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

LEKHAMOLC.K
AGED35YEARS
D/O.KRISHNAN,CHELAPLACKALHOUSE,MOOLAKAD
P.O,THODUPUZHANOWRESIDINGATVRINDAVANAM
COMPLEX,NEARDISTRICTJAIL,PADUKKADUKARA,VIYYUR
VILLAGE,THRISSURDISTRICT680010

BYADVS.
SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

1STATEOFKERALA
THROUGHTHESTATIONHOUSEOFFICER,ERNAKULAMTOWN
NORTHPOLICESTATION,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,REPRESENTED
BYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR,HIGHCOURTOF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM682031

2DR.D.SDILEEPKUMAR,AGED42YEARS,
S/O.LATEDIVAKARAN,RESIDINGATFLATNOIIIA,1/4NGO
QUARTERS,KAKKANADP.O,KOCHI-31

BYADVS.
SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
SRI.S.U.NAZARFORR2
PUBLICPROSECUTORM.N.MAYA

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGBEENFINALLYHEARDON28.05.2019,
THECOURTON06.06.2019PASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.6261/2014
2

R.NARAYANAPISHARADI,J
************************
Crl.M.C.No.6261of2014
——————————————–
Datedthisthe6thdayofJune,2019

ORDER

Thepetitioneristhesoleaccusedinthecase

C.C.No.1028/2014pendingonthefileoftheCourtofthe

AdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate(EconomicOffences)

Ernakulam.Theallegationagainstheristhatshehas

committedtheoffencespunishableunderSections406and

Section500oftheIndianPenalCode(forshort’SectionI.P.C’).Thispetition

isfiledbyhertoquashtheproceedingsagainstherinthe

aforesaidcasebyinvokingthepowerofthisCourtunder

Section482oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973

(hereinafterreferredtoas’theCode’).

2.Thecaseagainstthepetitionerwasregisteredon

thebasisofawrittencomplaintgivenbythesecond

respondent,whoisnoneotherthanherhusband,beforethe

SubInspectorofPolice,NorthPoliceStation,Ernakulam.

Theoffencesallegedagainstthepetitionerbythesecond
Crl.M.C.No.6261/2014
3

respondentintheaforesaidcomplaintwereunderSections

417and419I.P.C.CrimeNo.1184/2013ofErnakulamTown

NorthPoliceStationwasregisteredagainstthepetitioneron

thebasisoftheaforesaidcomplaintfortheoffences

punishableunderSections406,419,427and465I.P.C.

3.Duringtheinvestigationofthecase,the

investigatingofficerfiledareportbeforetheMagistrate’s

Courtconcernedthattheinvestigationrevealedthatthe

petitionerdidnotcommittheoffencespunishableunder

Sections419,Section427andSection465I.P.Cbutshecommittedthe

offencespunishableunderSections406andSection500I.P.C.After

completingtheinvestigationofthecase,thepolicefiled

AnnexureA5finalreport(chargesheet)againstthe

petitionerfortheoffencespunishableunderSections406

andSection500I.P.C.LearnedMagistratetookcognizanceofthe

aforesaidoffencesandnumberedthecaseas

C.C.No.1028/2014andorderedtoissuesummonstothe

petitioner.Onvariousgrounds,thepetitionerseekstoquash

allfurtherproceedingsagainstherinthecase.

4.Heardthelearnedcounselforthepetitionerand

thelearnedPublicProsecutorandalsothelearnedcounsel
Crl.M.C.No.6261/2014
4

forthesecondrespondent.

5.Thematerialavermentsinthewrittencomplaint

giventothepolicebythesecondrespondentareasfollows:

Thepetitionerandthesecondrespondentgotmarriedon

12.04.2012inatempleatErnakulam.Thepetitionerhad

wilfullyandfraudulentlyconcealedmaterialfactsregarding

heridentityfromthesecondrespondentandmadefalse

representations.Thepetitionerwasactuallyworkingasa

lowerdivisionclerkinthePublicWorksDepartment.But,

shemadethesecondrespondenttobelievethatshewas

workingasaJuniorSuperintendent.Intheapplicationgiven

totheofficeofthetempleforconductingthemarriage,the

petitionershowedthenameofoneRajaniashermother.

Shealsogaveafalseaddressintheaforesaidapplication.

Intheabsenceofthesecondrespondent,thepetitionerleft

thehousetakingawaythevaluablespresentedtoherbyhim

andalsoanamountofRs.30,000/-.Thepetitionerhad

wilfullysuppressedhersocial,economicalandculturalstatus

andinducedthesecondrespondenttocontractamarriage

withher.Shehascommittedtheoffencespunishableunder

Sections417and419I.P.C.

Crl.M.C.No.6261/2014
5

6.Theallegationagainstthepetitionerinthefinal

reportfiledbythepoliceisthatshemadethesecond

respondenttobelievethatshewasemployedasaJunior

SuperintendentinthePublicWorksDepartmentandthatshe

marriedhimbycheatinghimandalsothatshedefamedhim.

7.Theoffencesallegedagainstthepetitionerinthe

finalreportfiledbythepoliceareunderSections406and

Section500I.P.C.LearnedMagistratehastakencognizanceofthe

aforesaidoffencesonthebasisofAnnexureA5finalreport.

8.Section405I.P.Cdefinestheoffenceofcriminal

breachoftrust.Thepunishmentforthatoffenceisprovided

underSection406I.P.C.

9.Section405oftheIndianPenalCodereadsas

follows:

“405.Criminalbreachoftrust.-

Whoever,beinginanymanner
entrustedwithproperty,orwithany
dominionoverproperty,dishonestly

misappropriatesorconvertstohisown
usethatproperty,ordishonestlyuses
ordisposesofthatpropertyinviolation
ofanydirectionoflawprescribingthe
modeinwhichsuchtrustistobe
Crl.M.C.No.6261/2014
6

discharged,orofanylegalcontract,
expressorimplied,whichhehasmade
touchingthedischargeofsuchtrust,or
wilfullysuffersanyotherpersonsoto
do,commits”criminalbreachoftrust.”

10.AcarefulreadingofSection405I.P.Cshowsthat

theingredientsoftheoffenceofcriminalbreachoftrustare

thefollowing:(i)apersonshouldhavebeenentrustedwith

property,orentrustedwithdominionoverproperty;(ii)that

personshoulddishonestlymisappropriateorconverttohis

ownusethatproperty,ordishonestlyuseordisposeofthat

propertyorwilfullysufferanyotherpersontodoso;and(iii)

thatsuchmisappropriation,conversion,useordisposal

shouldbeinviolationofanydirectionoflawprescribingthe

modeinwhichsuchtrustistobedischarged,orofanylegal

contractwhichthepersonhasmade,touchingthedischarge

ofsuchtrust.

11.Thereisanavermentinthecomplaintgivenby

thesecondrespondenttothepolicethat,inhisabsence,the

petitionertookallvaluablespresentedbyhimtoherandall

herbelongingsandalsoanamountofRs.30,000/-belonging

tohimandsheleftthehouse.Thisistheonlyavermentin
Crl.M.C.No.6261/2014
7

theaforesaidcomplaintwithregardtoanyusebythe

petitionerofanypropertyownedbythesecondrespondent.

Presumably,itisonthebasisofthisallegationthatthe

investigatingofficerreachedaconclusionthatthepetitioner

hascommittedanoffencepunishableunderSection406

I.P.C.However,inthechargesheetfiledagainstthe

petitioner,thereisnoallegationthatshehad

misappropriatedorusedordisposedofanyproperty

entrustedwithherbythesecondrespondent.

12.Inordertoconstituteanoffenceofcriminalbreach

oftrust,itisessentialthattherewasentrustmentofsome

propertyordominionoverpropertywiththeaccused.The

propertyinrespectofwhichcriminalbreachoftrustcanbe

committedmustnecessarilybethepropertyofsomeperson

otherthantheaccusedorthebeneficialinterestinor

ownershipofitmustbeinotherpersonandtheoffender

mustholdsuchpropertyintrustforsuchotherpersonorfor

hisbenefit(SectionSeeCentralBureauofInvestigationv.

DuncansAgroIndustriesLimited:AIR1996SC2452).

AtrustcontemplatedbySection405I.P.Cwouldariseonly

whenthereisanentrustmentofpropertyordominionover
Crl.M.C.No.6261/2014
8

property.True,Section405IPCdoesnotcontemplatethe

creationofatrustwithallthetechnicalitiesofthelawof

trust.EntrustmentofpropertyasenvisagedinSection405

I.P.Cneednotbeinanyparticularmanner.Theentrustment

mayarisein”anymanner”whatsoever.Thewords’inany

manner’inthecontextaresignificant.Thesectiondoesnot

providethattheentrustmentofthepropertywiththe

accusedshallbemadebysomeperson(SectionSeeSomNath

Puriv.StateofRajasthan:AIR1972SC1490).But,in

ordertoestablish”entrustmentofdominion”overproperty

toanaccusedpersonthemereexistenceofthatperson’s

dominionoverpropertyisnotenough.Itmustbefurther

shownthathisdominionwastheresultofentrustment(SectionSee

VeljiRaghavjiPatelv.StateofMaharashtra:AIR1965

SC1433).Theterm”entrusted”inSection405I.P.C

governsnotonlytheword”withtheproperty”immediately

followingitbutalsothewords”orwithanydominionover

theproperty”occurringthereafter(SectionSeeStateofGujaratv.

JaswantlalNathalal:AIR1968SC700).

13.Thereisnoallegationagainstthepetitionerthat

shemisappropriatedorusedordisposedofanyproperty
Crl.M.C.No.6261/2014
9

ownedbythesecondrespondentandwhichwasentrusted

withherinanymanner.Thesecondrespondenthasnocase

inthecomplaintgivenbyhimtothepolicethatthe

petitionerhadcommittedtheoffenceofcriminalbreachof

trust.Intheabsenceofanyallegationagainstthepetitioner

totheaboveeffect,theoffencepunishableunderSection

406I.P.Cisnotmadeoutagainsther.

14.Theotheroffenceallegedagainstthepetitioneris

undersection499I.P.C.Thepunishmentforthatoffenceis

providedunderSection500I.P.C.

15.Section499I.P.Cprovidesthatwhoeverbywords

eitherspokenorintendedtoberead,orbysignsorby

visiblerepresentations,makesorpublishesanyimputation

concerninganypersonintendingtoharm,orknowingor

havingreasontobelievethatsuchimputationwillharm,

thereputationofsuchperson,issaidtodefamethatperson.

16.Thesecondrespondenthasnotraisedany

allegationagainstthepetitionerthatshemadeorpublished

anyimputationconcerninghiminanymanner.Thefinal

reportfiledbythepoliceorthecomplaintgivenbythe

secondrespondenttothepolicedoesnotcontainanysuch
Crl.M.C.No.6261/2014
10

allegationagainstthepetitioner.Insuchcircumstances,the

offencepunishableunderSection500I.P.Cisalsonotmade

outagainstthepetitioner.

17.Section199(1)oftheCodeprovidesthatno

Courtshalltakecognizanceofanoffencepunishable

underSectionChapterXXIoftheIndianPenalCodeexceptupon

acomplaintmadebysomepersonaggrievedbythe

offence.TheprovisioncontainedunderSection199(1)of

theCodeismandatory.But,Section155(4)ofthe

Codeprovidesthatwhereacaserelatestotwoor

moreoffencesofwhichatleastoneiscognizable,

thecaseshallbedeemedtobeacognizablecase,

notwithstandingthattheotheroffencesarenon-

cognizable.Inacasewherethepolicehasconducted

investigationintoacognizableoffenceaswellasanoffence

punishableunderSection500I.P.Candfiledfinalreport

implicatingtheaccusedforbothoffences,whethertheCourt

hasgotpowertotakecognizanceoftheoffencepunishable

underSection500I.P.Consuchreport,isalargerquestion

whicharisesonthefactsofthepresentcase,especiallyin

viewofthedecisionsoftheHon’bleSupremeCourtinState
Crl.M.C.No.6261/2014
11

ofOrissav.SharatChandraSahu:AIR1997SC1and

Ushabenv.KishorbhaiChunilalTalpada:(2012)6SCC

353.But,inviewofmyfindingthattheallegationsmade

againstthepetitionerdonotattractormakeoutthe

ingredientsoftheoffencespunishableunderSections406

andSection500I.P.C,theaforesaidlargerquestionneednotbe

decidedinthiscase.

18.Intheaforesaidcircumstances,continuationofthe

proceedingsagainstthepetitionerwouldbeanabuseofthe

processofcourtandtheproceedingsagainstherareliableto

bequashed.

19.Consequently,thepetitionisallowed.All

proceedingsagainstthepetitionerinthecase

C.C.No.1028/2014pendingonthefileoftheCourtofthe

AdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate(EconomicOffences),

Ernakulam,whicharebasedonAnnexureA5finalreport,are

herebyquashed.

(sd/-)

R.NARAYANAPISHARADI,JUDGE
jsr/03/06/2019
Crl.M.C.No.6261/2014
12

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS:

ANNEXUREP1ANNEXUREA1THETRUECOPYOFTHE
PETITIONINM.CNO28/2013DATED9-9-

2013ONTHELEARNEDADDITIONALCHIEF
JUDICIALMAGISTRATE’S(ECONMIC
OFFENCES)COURT,ERNAKULAM

ANNEXUREP2ANNEXUREA2THETRUECOPYOFTHE
PETITIONINCRLM.PNO403/2014ON
THEFILESOFTHELEARNEDJUDICIAL
FIRSTCLASSMAGISTRATE’SCOURT-
1,ALUVA

ANNEXUREP3ANNEXUREA3THETRUECOPYOFTHE
PETITIONINO.PNO1549/2013ONTHE
FILESOFTHELEARNEDFAMILY
COURT,ERNAKULAM

ANNEXUREP4ANNEXUREA4THETRUECERTIFIEDCOPY
OFTHEFIRINCRIMENO1184/2013OF
ERNAKULAMTOWNNORTHPOLICESTATION

ANNEXUREP5ANNEXUREA5THETRUECERTIFIEDCOPY
OFTHEFINALREPORTINCRIMENO
1184/2013OFERNAKULAMTOWNNORTH
POLICESTATION

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