R.V.BABU S/O.VISWANATHAN, Vs STATE OF KERALA

Petitioner seeks to quash a criminal prosecution

against him. He seeks the relief under Sec.482

of Cr.P.C .

The 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the

petitioner and another. It was filed before the

judicial magistrate of the first class, North

Paravur. A copy of the complaint is annex-A1. It

was filed alleging commission of an offence

punishable under Sec.420 of IPC . The learned

magistrate forwarded the complaint to the local

station house officer under Sec.156(3) of

Cr.P.C . On receipt of the complaint a case was

registered at the North Paravur police station.

Annex-A2 is a copy of the FIR. The petitioner

filed Crl.M.C.1342/2013 before this court to get

the FIR quashed. The investigating officer,

while the said Crl.M.C was pending, filed annex-

A3 final report under Sec.173(2) of Cr.P.C .

Crl.M.C.1342/2013 was dismissed by this court in

view of the filing of the final report. This

court, however, granted permission to the

petitioner to challenge the final report on

legal grounds. Annex-A4 is the copy of the order

of this court. The present Crl.M.C is filed

requesting to quash annex-A3 final report.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the learned public prosecutor and the learned

counsel for the 2nd respondent.

The petitioner contends that the dispute between

himself and the 2nd respondent is purely civil in

nature. According to the petitioner, a property

was purchased by him from its previous owner,

but the 2nd respondent with the intention to have

an unlawful gratification from the petitioner

filed a false complaint against him. It is also

contended that the allegations in the complaint,

even if true, would only reveal a civil dispute.

The criminal prosecution against the petitioner

is liable to the quashed if the allegations in

annex-A1 complaint disclose only a dispute of

purely civil in nature.

I read annex-A1 complaint carefully. It is a

detailed complaint narrating the events which

allegedly happened. The crux of the allegations

is that a property in which the 2nd respondent

had invested money, and which he had contracted

to purchase, had to be purchased in the name of

the petitioner who had not shelled out money for

its purchase. The 2nd respondent narrates in his

complaint how the sale deed happened to be

executed in favour of the petitioner instead of

the former. It is alleged that it was got done

exploiting superstition. The 2nd respondent

alleges in his complaint that he was made to

believe that, he being a christian by religion,

purchase of the property in his name would make

the supernatural powers anger which would even

result in his death. He states further that he

was made to believe so by the petitioner and the

co-accused. It is also alleged that the

petitioner assured to execute sale deed when the

2nd respondent, who was doing real estate

business, finds a purchaser for the property.

But, it is alleged, the petitioner changed his

colour and refused to execute sale deed in

favour of the person who agreed to purchase the

property from the 2nd respondent.

The allegations in the complaint may be true or

false. Whether the allegations are true or not

is a matter for evidence. This court in a

proceedings under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C will not

appreciate any form of evidence produced to

prove a disputed fact. If the allegations in the

complaint are true, it cannot be said that there

is no element of cheating attracting Sec.420 of

IPC . It is not possible to hold that the

allegations in the complaint are only of civil

in nature. The petitioner cannot call upon this

court in a proceedings under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C

to decide a disputed fact. For the above reasons

the petitioner is not entitled to the relief

claimed by him. The Crl.M.C deserves only a

dismissal. It is made clear that this order will

not preclude the petitioner from exercising his

right under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C .

The Crl.M.C is dismissed.