Shahul Hameed vs State Of Kerala

V.G.Arun, J

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.111 of 2020 of the Feroke Police Station, now pending as C.P.No.9 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode. The crime was registered based on the third respondent’s complaint alleging commission of offences

punishable under Sections 308 and 420 of IPC. As per the averments in the complaint, the third respondent’s inability to repay the business loan

availed from the Catholic Syrian Bank had resulted in his residential house being brought to sale. At that juncture, the petitioner contacted the third

respondent, claiming to be an Advocate practising in the High Court and also the General Secretary of an organisation named the Kerala Debt and

Debt Trap Victims Association and assured that he will negotiate with the Bank and secure substantial reduction in the amount outstanding in the third

respondent's loan account. Believing the petitioner’s words, the third respondent entrusted substantial amounts as and when demanded by the

petitioner. The third respondent was made to believe that the money was being utilised for settling his loan account. Thus, an amount of Rs.15,80,000/-

was collected by the petitioner. While so, officials from the Bank came to the third respondent's house to evict him and sell the property. Thereupon,

the third respondent realised that the amounts handed over to the petitioner had not been remitted in his account. The petitioner was therefore called

upon to produce proof of the payments effected and expenses incurred and a discussion was held in the presence of mediators on 05.02.2020. The

petitioner failed to produce the documents evidencing payment and on being compelled promised to fetch the documents from his house and hand

them over to the third respondent at Ramanattukara Junction. Hence, the third respondent waited at Ramanattukara Junction and by about 12'O'

clock, the petitioner came in a car and instead of stopping the car and handing over the documents, sped away after dashing the car on the third

respondent’s hand. Hence the complaint.

After investigation, the Police filed Annexure 7 Final Report, alleging commission of the offence under Section 308 IPC. Allegation regarding the

offence under Section 420 IPC being distinct and separate, third respondent filed separate complaints, resulting in Crime No.682 of 2020 being

registered at the Feroke Police Station and Crime No.621 of 2020, at the Pantheerankavu Police Station. The prayer in this Crl.M.C is to quash

Annexure 7 Final Report and all further proceedings on the ground that the allegations upon which the crime is registered, are false.

According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- is due to him from the third respondent. When petitioner insisted

that the money should be returned, third respondent and friends wrongfully restrained and intimidated him at Ramanattukara Junction at about 11.30

a.m on 05.02.2020. The incident was reported to the Police and Crime No.84 of 2020 was registered against the third respondent and three others for

offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. In support of this contention, Annexure 3 agreement is relied on. It is argued that the

third respondent having agreed to repay Rs.18,00,000/- received from the petitioner, the allegations to the contrary can only be false. Reliance is also

placed on the witness statement and scene mahazar in Crime No.84 of 2020, registered at the petitioner's instance.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a history sheeter involved in various other cheating cases. It is contended that no

extraordinary circumstance, warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is raised in the pleadings or urged during

arguments.

I find merit in the contention put forth by the learned Public Prosecutor. The contours of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the

circumspection to be exercised when called upon to quash criminal proceedings at a premature stage, is well settled. The High Court, while exercising

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is also not expected to conduct an enquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR.

Being so, the authenticity and genuineness of Annexure 3 agreement or the 161 statements of witnesses and the scene mahazar in the Crime No.84 of

2020 cannot be considered in these proceedings. Those contentions can be urged before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

In the result the Crl.M.C is dismissed.