Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Dr, Kauser Edappagath, J
MUHAMMED HANEEFA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 2927/2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN, SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
For the Respondents: SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ-PP
Allegations of cheating and misappropriation under IPC Sections 406 and 420 established based on the complaint's averments.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406 and 420 - Criminal revision petitions challenging dismissal of discharge petitions - Allegations of cheating and misappropriation of money - The court held that clear averments in the complaint attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 - Mere civil nature of transaction does not preclude criminal liability. (Paras 5, 7, 9, 10)
(B) Revision Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that if the evidence proposed by the prosecution is sufficient to attract the ingredients of the offences, the power to discharge cannot be exercised. (Paras 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused of inducing the second respondent to invest money in their business with promises of profit and return, which they failed to fulfill, leading to allegations of cheating.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners based on the complaint and the nature of the transaction, which included elements of both civil and criminal liability.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations constituted a civil dispute or attracted criminal liability under the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to establish the intention to cheat and misappropriate funds, thus justifying the dismissal of the discharge petitions.
Result: Criminal revision petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding the nature of the transaction as civil or criminal. (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 2. court's observations on the sufficiency of evidence for criminal charges. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the application of criminal law to the case. (Para 10) |
O R D E R
Since both these revision petitions are connected and the parties are one and the same, they are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The 2nd respondent preferred Annexure A2 complaint before the District Police Chief, Thrissur against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners approached her and induced her to believe that if she deposits money in the business run by them, she will be given profit every month and the money will be returned as and when demanded and believing the said words, she parted with Rs.22,00,000/- to the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter cheated her without giving the profit as agreed or returning the amount. On the basis of Annexure A2 complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Thrissur registered Annexure A1 FIR against the petitioners. After investigation, two final reports were filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur (for short, 'the trial court'). Those final reports were marked as Annexure A3 in both the revision petitions. Based on Annexure A3 final report in Crl.R.P.No. 2927 of 2011, C.C.No.82 of 2010 was registered and based on Annexure A3 final report in Crl.R.P.No.2928 of 2011, C.C.No.83 of 2010 was registered. The allegation in the final report in C.C.No.82 of 2010 is that the petitioners after inducement as mentioned above, received Rs.22,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent, Rs.2,00,000/- from CW No.2 and Rs.27,00,000/- from CW No.3. The total amount involved in the said case is Rs.51,00,000/-. The allegation in the final report in C.C.No.83 of 2010 is that the petitioners after inducement, received Rs.22,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent, Rs.9,40,000/- from CW No.2 and Rs.10,00,000/- from CW No.3. The total amount involved in the said case is Rs.41,40,000/-.
3. The petitioners appeared before the trial court.
They were released on bail. They filed separate petitions under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. Crl.M.P. No. 5915 of 2011 was filed in C.C.No.82 of 2010 and Crl.M.P. No.5069 of 2011 was filed in C.C.No.83 of 2010. The trial court after hearing both sides, dismissed both the petitions as per Annexure A5 orders. The said orders are under challenge in these revision petitions.
4. I have heard Sri.Dinesh Mathew J. Murikan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that a close reading of Annexure A2 complaint, Annexure A1 FIR, statement of the witnesses and the entire final report would reveal that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the revision petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that there is no averment in Annexure A2 complaint that there was intention on the part of the petitioners at the inception to cheat so as to attract Section
420 of IPC . The learned counsel further submitted that there are no averments to attract the essential basic ingredients of Section 406 as well. The learned counsel also submitted that the attempt of the 2nd respondent is to convert an issue which is purely civil and contractual in nature into a criminal case. The trial court ought to have discharged the petitioners under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., submitted the counsel. Reliance was placed onGopalakrishnan K. v. State of Kerala and Another [2009 (4) KHC 506] and Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 998]
in support of his submissions.
6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials on record would clearly show that the ingredients of the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC are made out and the trial court rightly dismissed the petition for discharge. The learned Public Prosecutor fur
