Dishonest intent is essential to establish IPC Sections 406 and 420; failure in contractual obligations does not automatically indicate criminal liability.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TH FRIDAY, THE 12 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 21ST BHADRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1281 OF 2024 CRIME NO.320/2013 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2024 IN CMP NO.1362 OF

2024 IN CC NO.319 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KALAMASSERY REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

NISHAD MATHEW AGED 43 YEARS S/O MATHEW, KATTIVEETTIL HOUSE, KEEZHUR, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670703 BY ADV SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031

2 ADDL.2 SREENIVASN S/O KUMARAN, KALARICKAL HOUSE, CHERUVALOOR DESOM, KALLOOR VADAKKEMURI, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR (ADDL.2^ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2025 IN I.A. NO.2 OF 2024)

SRI.HRITHWICK –SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1281 of 2024 -------------------------------

Dated this the 12^th day of September, 2025

ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

13.09.2024 in CMP No.1362 of 2024 in C.C. No.319 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery.

2. As per the impugned order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for discharge.

Aggrieved by the same, this revision is field.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though notice is issued to the additional 2^nd respondent, there is no appearance.

4. The allegations against the petitioner is that in order to make unlawful gain to the accused and to cause wrongful loss to CW1, the accused made to believe him that CW1 will be made a partner to his ‘Sea Gate Bar Hotel’. For that purpose, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) from the house of CW1 at Cheruvandoor. Further in 2008, to purchase High Way Bar Hotel at Amballoor, Thrissur, for the accused, CW1, who is the complainant handed over deeds of the property of the wife of CW1, to pledge it as security at Union Bank of India, Aluva. The property was not released from the security as agreed. In 2009, Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs) handed over by the accused for making CW1 as a partner to the Bar Hotel, being constructed by the accused at Ernakulam. Towards its 1^st installment Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs) was received by the accused from the house of CW1. 2^nd installment of Rs.25 lakhs received by the accused at ‘Sea Gate Hotel at Pathadipalam’ is the case. Thus, it is alleged that the accused obtained a total amount of rs.1,55,00,000/- (Rupees One Crores Fifty Five Lakhs Only). It is the case of the complainant that the accused made to believe that the complainant will be made as a partner to the bar hotels. But the complainant was not made as a partner. When the money was demanded back, the accused issued a cheque for Rs.25 lakhs and 70 lakhs of the Syndicate Bank Kalamassery. But, when the cheque was presented, it was returned with endorsement “account closed”. The accused neither made CW1 as a partner to the bar hotel nor had returned the money obtained from CW1 as agreed and hence it is alleged that the accused committed offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

5. This Court perused the final report filed by the police in this case, which is produced as Annexure 2. A perusal of the final report would show that the case of the complainant is that he invested some amount in a business concern on an assurance that, he