Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1946 CRIME NO.216/2013 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CC NO.163 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: VIJEESH S/O.M.VIJAYAKUMAR, MANNUR HOUSE, VADAVATHUR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA 1 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031. 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM- 682 024. 3 SMT.JAYALAKSHMI AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.VIJAYAN NAIR, LAKSHMI NIVAS, KAYYATHU LANE, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM- 682 024. SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2024, THE COURT ON 08.07.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2024 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, who is the first accused in Crime No.216/2013 of Palarivattom Police Station, and the prayers herein are as follows:
“a. Call for the records relating to C.C.No.163/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Kunnampuram, Ernakulam b. To quash Annexure-IV final report filed by the 2 nd respondent in C.C.No.163/2016 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Kunnumpuram, Ernakulam in connection with Crime No.216/2013 of Palarivattom Police Station.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused herein,
along with other accused persons, committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. Precisely, the crux of the prosecution case is that the accused herein, with intention to cheat and defraud the defacto complainant, fixed the marriage between the defacto complainant and the first accused on 24.03.2012 at NSS Karayogam Hall, Kaloor. It was decided, to conduct the marriage on 26.01.2013 at the marriage function held on 24.03.2012. The defacto complainant and her family taken all endeavours to conduct the marriage on 26.01.2013. Later, the first accused retracted from the marriage and thereby committed breach of trust as well as cheating.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
the petitioner has no intention to cheat or defraud the defacto complainant in any manner, though the proposed marriage could not be solemnized. He failed to argue anything to hold that the prosecution case is without sufficient materials so as to quash the same.
5. It is true that, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd accused in this crime was discharged by the learned Magistrate, as per Annexure V
order produced herein, holding that no materials available to
proceed against him.
6. Zealously opposing quashment of the proceedings
against the petitioner, who willfully retracted from the marriage fixed on 26.01.2013 at the marriage fixation ceremony on 24.03.2012 at NSS Karayogam Hall, Kaloor, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a clear case of cheating and breach of trust and the prosecution materials would justify commission of the said offences by the petitioner. In such a case, the matter would require trial.
7. It is true that the 2nd accused was discharged by
the learned Magistrate as per Annexure V order, holding that no materials available to proceed against him. However, it is discernible from the prosecution records that the marriage was fixed on 26.01.2013 at the marriage fixation function on 24.03.2012 held at NSS Karayogam Hall, Kaloor. Thereafter the defacto complainant and her family done everything to solemnize the marriage as fixed, but the first accused withdrawn from the marriage and thereby committed breach of trust as well as cheating prima facie. Since the prosecution materials would show involvement of the petitioner in this crime, the matter would require trial and therefore, the quashment prayer cannot be considered. Therefore, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4135/2018 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND FIVE OTHERS BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ERNAKULAM AS CMP.NO.288/2013 ON 22/01/2013. ANNEXURE-II TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS CRIME NO.216/2013 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED NSS KARAYOGAM AT KALOOR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-IV TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXURE-II FIR AS C.C.NO.1458/2013. ANNEXURE-V TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/10/17 PASSED BY JFCM COURT-IX IN CONNECTION WITH CMP NO.2590/2017 AS CC NO.163/2016 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.216/2013 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL