Sajeevan vs Raphael

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided May 28, 2024

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1291375

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1291375
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: May 28, 2024
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/1215/2013

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sajeevan

Respondent

Raphael

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice p.somarajan tuesday, the 28th day of may 2024 / 7th jyaishta, 1946 against the order dated 10.01.2013 in cc no.217 of 2002 of chief judicial magistrate, thrissur revision petitioner/complainant: sajeevan s/o. ramakrishnan, mundakkal house, r.v.puram colony p.o., chalakudy, trichur dist. sri.t.m.chandran sri.s.sujith respondents/accused nos.2 and 3: 1 raphael, proprietor, renil auto garage, kecheri, trichur district. 2 p.hussain, padipurakkad house, mannoor west, palakkad district. 3 state of kerala represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam. deepu thankan sri.p.u.shailajan this criminal revision petition having come up for admission on 28.05.2024, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderthe revision is against the order discharging the accused by the trial court for the offence punishable under sections 120b, 406, 420 r/w 34 ipc. initially, a private complaint was filed alleging offences under sections 120b, 406 and 420 ipc. the issue involved is purely civil in nature. breach of an obligation arising out of contract or understanding may not by itself attract the offence punishable under section 420 ipc. in order to bring home the offence under section 420 ipc, besides the entrustment of property either fraudulently or deceptively, the ingredients which would constitute ‘cheating’ as defined under section 415 ipc has to be established. it is really lacking in the present case in hand. necessarily, the offence under section 420 ipc will not stand. a mere breach of an obligation arising out of contract unless constitute the ingredients to satisfy entrustment, and its breach will not constitute or attract the offence under section 406 ipc. necessarily, the impugnedorder deserves no interference. the criminal revisionpetition fails and is dismissed. sd/- p.somarajan judge msp

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2013 IN CC NO.217 OF 2002 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: SAJEEVAN S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, R.V.PURAM COLONY P.O., CHALAKUDY, TRICHUR DIST. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3: 1 RAPHAEL, PROPRIETOR, RENIL AUTO GARAGE, KECHERI, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2 P.HUSSAIN, PADIPURAKKAD HOUSE, MANNOOR WEST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. DEEPU THANKAN SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The revision is against the order discharging the accused by the trial court for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC. Initially, a private complaint was filed alleging offences under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 IPC. The issue involved is purely civil in nature. Breach of an obligation arising out of contract or understanding may not by itself attract the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. In order to bring home the offence under Section 420 IPC, besides the entrustment of property either fraudulently or deceptively, the ingredients which would constitute ‘cheating’ as defined under Section 415 IPC has to be established. It is really lacking in the present case in hand. Necessarily, the offence under Section 420 IPC will not stand. A mere breach of an obligation arising out of contract unless constitute the ingredients to satisfy entrustment, and its breach will not constitute or attract the offence under Section 406 IPC. Necessarily, the impugned

order deserves no interference. The Criminal Revision

Petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties Sajeevan vs Raphael Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan