Insufficient evidence to support criminal allegations leads to discharge of the accused.

O R D E R

The order dated 29.11.2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kasaragod in C.M.P No.2165/2016 in C.C No.101/2016 rejecting the prayer of discharge of the first accused in the said case, is under challenge in this revision filed under section 397 Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows:

On 02.02.2013, while the de facto complainant was on the way to Mangalapuram Airport to board flight to the Gulf Country where has been working, the first accused/petitioner along with 15 other hooligans chased the taxi car in which the de facto complainant was travelling, waylaid him at Manjeshwaram and forcibly took him to a room at Kasaragod, instilling fear of death by brandishing a knife. Thereafter, the de facto complainant was kept under detention in that room and subjected to criminal intimidation demanding an amount of Rupees one Crore as ransom. He was later on released upon payment of Rs.50,00,000/- which was mobilised by his relatives who came there, and also after executing a document undertaking to make payment of the balance amount. Thus, the petitioner along with the other accused, are said to have committed the offence punishable under sections 341, 363 and

506(ii) r/w Section 34 I.P.C.

3. The case was registered by the Manjeshwaram Police on

19.02.2013 upon receipt of a complaint by way of e-mail from the de facto complainant from the Gulf country where he was working. Though the FIR was registered in respect of the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 364(A) and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 I.P.C, the final report was filed incorporating the offences under sections 341, 363 and 506(ii)

r/w Section 34 I.P.C.

4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that none of the offences alleged against him are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the petitioner, a false case has been foisted against him to defeat the agreement which the de facto complainant had executed in his favour after due negotiations with regard to the de facto complainant’s liability of Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakhs, and undertaking the payment of the balance amount of Rs.70,00,000/- after the remittance of Rs.50,00,000/- on 02.02.2013.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The complaint which the de facto complainant sent by way of e-mail to the Manjeshwaram Police and the statement given by him during the course of investigation would reveal that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were business partners abroad, and that there existed financial disputes between them. A major portion of the complaint and the statement of the de facto complainant are about the business issues between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, and the money claim made by the petitioner against the de facto complainant. Towards the end of the above complaint and statement, the de facto complainant had mentioned the alleged incident which constituted the crime involved in this case. However, the statements of all other witnesses including the driver of the taxi car in which the de facto complainant was travelling to Mangalapuram Airport on 02.02.2013, did not support the allegation of the de facto complainant that he was forcibly taken to a room at Kasaragod under the fear of death and kept under detention there. The driver of the above taxi car, who has been arraigned as CW2, had even given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C to the effect that there had been some heated exchanges between the de facto complainant and the petitioner, at a place enroute to Mangalapuram Airport, about the financial transactions between them, and tha