Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 822 (KER)

Radhakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala

2024-07-09

A.BADHARUDEEN

body2024
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 1033 of 2020 of Changanassery Police Station, Kottayam, now pending as C.C. No. 445/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanassery, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in the above Crime. 2. In this matter, the only allegation against the 2nd accused is that while O.S. No. 138/2018 filed by the defacto complainant before the Sub Court, Kottayam to realise Rs.25 lakh alleged to have been given to the 1st accused on 27.08.2016 was pending, the 2nd accused executed a settlement deed and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short hereinafter). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner read out the relevant materials contained in the FIS and Final Report and vehemently canvassed quashment of the proceedings. He also submitted that there are no materials to see commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC, prima facie, by the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner/2nd accused is that he got benefited from the settlement deed executed by the 1st accused, during the pendency of O.S. No. 138/2018, a suit for recovery of money, filed against the 1st accused, where no order restraining the transfer or alienation was passed. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor appraised the facts of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though opposed quashment of the proceedings. 5. Coming to the crux of the allegations, the prosecution case is that the 1st accused executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd accused, during the pendency of O.S. No. 138/2018 as on 23.03.2018. But there is no allegation for the prosecution that any charge was created on the property or any interim order passed by the Civil Court restraining alienation or transfer of the property. That apart, the prosecution has no case that the property is a subject matter of the civil dispute. But there is no allegation for the prosecution that any charge was created on the property or any interim order passed by the Civil Court restraining alienation or transfer of the property. That apart, the prosecution has no case that the property is a subject matter of the civil dispute. Therefore, merely because the 2nd accused happened to be a beneficiary in view of the settlement deed executed during pendency of the civil suit seeking recovery of money from the 1st accused, the 2nd accused could not be held to have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC. Therefore, this criminal case is unwarranted and an abuse of process of court. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, this petition stands allowed. Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No. 1033 of 2020 of Changanassery Police Station, Kottayam, now pending as C.C. No. 445/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanassery, as against the petitioner stands quashed.