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