The court found no evidence of fraudulent intent sufficient to sustain the criminal charges against the petitioner.

1. The petitioner is the sole accused in crime No. 640 of 2015 of Elamakkara Police Station. The said crime has been registered alleging offence punishable under S.416, S.419, S.464, S.465, S.468 and S.484 of the IPC. Investigation has been completed and Annexure - B final report has been laid before Court. The same is sought to be quashed in this petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for brevity).

2. Facts relevant for appreciating the contentions of the petitioner can be encapsulated in the following manner:
The Sub Inspector of Police along with his party, while on patrol duty on 07/08/2015, received reliable information that a person was residing within his jurisdictional limits, claiming to be a Sub Collector and that his wife, an IAS officer. Based on this information, the officer reached the house of the petitioner. On enquiry, the petitioner is alleged to have asserted that he is a Sub Collector of the State of Karnataka and had come to Kerala for the treatment purposes of his wife. When called upon to disclose his identity, the petitioner is said to have handed over an ID Card of the Government of Karnataka showing his photograph and name and address as Mohammed Hayath Khatib, Secretary Revenue Department, Deputy Commissioner Office, District Raichur. When he was questioned further he handed over an Aadhar Card bearing his name as Mohammed Hayath Khatib S/o Late A. M. Khatib, and containing his residential address at Karnataka. Further enquiry revealed that the petitioner was working at the Deputy Commissioners Office as a Clerk and was under suspension during the relevant period. Witnesses were questioned and final report was laid before Court which is produced as Annexure B.

3. The gist of the allegation in the final report is that the petitioner who had passed only the 10th standard, had misrepresented that he is Sub Collector and used the forged ID card of the Revenue Department of the State of Karnataka committed cheating by impersonation.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that even if the prosecution case is admitted as true, no offence is made out. The learned counsel points out that the wife of the accused was suffering from cancer and she was undergoing treatment at Amrita hospital, Kochi. CW 1 and 2 are property brokers and a house was arranged by them for the petitioner. The owner of the property has not been cited by the prosecution. Nobody has a case that it was on the basis of a false representation that the petitioner had secured the apartment on lease. Referring to the evidence of CW 1 and CW 2 , it is pointed out that the accused had only stated to them that he was a high official.

6. Inviting my attention to S.419 of the Indian Penal Code it is submitted that to bring home the offence under the said Section the elements of S.416 of the IPC are to be proved. The prosecution has no case that any person was deceived as a result of any act committed by the petitioner. When there is total absence of the incidents of cheating, it cannot be said that the offence was made out. After referring to the evidence of CW 1 and 2, it is pointed out that they are property brokers who had arranged a house on rent for the petitioner and they do not have a case that the same was done because of the representation by the accused that he was a Sub Collector.

7. It is further pointed out that the offence under S.465 will not be attracted since the prose