AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Satheesachandran, J.
APPENDIX
PETITIONER''S ANNEXURES:
ANNEX I
Copy of the complaint in cc.no.383 of 2011 filed by the defacto complainant before the j.f.c.m court-1, parapanangadi dated 16/09/2006
ANNEX II
Copy of the f.i.r.no.333/2006 of parapanangadi police station dated 09/11/2006
ANNEX III
Copy of the charge sheet filed by the 1st respondent in crime no.333/2006 dated 22/02/2007
ANNEX IV
Copy of the agreement for sale executed between the humble petitioner and the defacto complainant
ANNEX V
Copy of the compounding petition filed by the legal heir of the deceased defacto complainant and the 2nd accused dated 30/03/2011
ANNEX VI
Copy of the order of acquittal of the 2nd accused dated 30/03/2011
RESPONDENT''S ANNEXURES:
NIL
Petitioner is the accused in C.C No. 383/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi. He is being prosecuted for the offence u/s 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid case is a split up case from C.C No. 206/2007 on the file of the above court. Second respondent had filed a complaint before the Magistrate imputing the offence of cheating u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and another. That complaint was forwarded to the Station House Officer concerned u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, ''the Code'' for investigation and report, which led to the registration of the crime and, later, after completion of the investigation, Annexure III report indicting both the accused for the offence punishable u/s 420 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. When the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the basis of the above report, petitioner remained at large and the trial proceeded against the coaccused (A2) with the case numbered as C.C No. 206/2007 on the file of the court. Pending the proceedings, it is stated, the de facto complainant passed away. On the composition entered between one of the legal heirs of the de facto complainant and that being recognised by the court the proceedings as against the coaccused, who alone was proceeded then in that case, ended in acquittal, and the case against the petitioner was split up to be proceeded against him as and when his presence is secured. Subsequently, it is stated, petitioner appeared before the court and the case against him, which has been split up from the former case, was taken again on the file of the court, numbered as C.C No. 383/2011. Petitioner has filed the above petition, to quash the criminal proceedings against him in that case invoking the inherent powers of this court u/s 482 of the Code. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, directions were issued for impleading the legal heir of the de facto complainant who had entered into composition of the offence with the coaccused when the trial proceeded against that accused. After service of notice on such legal heir for impleadment as the additional second respondent, he has not entered appearance. When that be so, even if there was any composition of the offence entered by the additional second respondent with the coaccused, A2, how far it would enure in favour of the petitioner cannot be considered by this court to examine whether exercise of inherent jurisdiction is called for as urged in the petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner adverting to the allegations set out in Annexure I complaint would submit that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code are totally lacking and continuation of the criminal proceedings on the basis of such complaint against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of the court. Even assuming that the complaint filed by the de facto complainant lacked some material particulars to constitute the offence, cognizance of the offence was taken on a police report after investigation of the crime cannot be lost sight of. When that be so, if at all the petitioner is entitled to any plea of discharge, he can canvass the same before the Magistrate u/s 239 of the Code. On the facts and circumstances presented in the case, where cognizance of the offence was taken on a report filed by the police and that too in a case requiring trial as a warrant case, I find, inherent jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Petition is dismissed.