Kerala High Court
Crl.Rev.Pet/4394/2006 of SHAHUL P.S. Vs STATE OF KERALA on 11 April 2025
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4394 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 4394 OF 2006 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2006 IN CC NO.82 OF 2004 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4394 OF 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2006 IN CC NO.82 OF 2004 OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3:
SHAHUL P.S.
S/O.SAYED MUHAMMED RAUTHAR, PUTHENVEEDU,, PADINJAREVATTOM, MUVATTUPUZHA.
HASSAN AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.BABER RAUTHER, RAMAMANGALAM,
MARADI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.238/CR/EKM/02 OF CRIME BRANCH, CID, ERNAKULAM, ALUVA).
BY ADV.
SMT.SEENA.C - PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
G. GIRISH, J.
-----------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4394 of 2006
----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The charge framed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, in C.C.No.82 of 2004 against accused Nos.2 and 3 in the said case in connection with the commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is under challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.2 and 3.
2. The issue relates to the purchase of a mini lorry by the 1st accused by availing a loan from the financial establishment in which CW1 worked as Manager. It is stated that the 1st accused availed a loan of Rs.4,32,600/- from the above financial establishment on the basis of a hire purchase agreement for the purchase of the vehicle. In connection with the above transaction, the 1st accused is said to have initially deposited Rs.95,395/- with the above establishment, as given by the petitioners herein. After the purchase of the vehicle, the 1st accused is alleged to have entrusted the same to the petitioners herein. Thereafter, the petitioners allegedly transferred the vehicle to CW3 without the knowledge and consent of the financial establishment. It is upon the above premises that the Final Report in this case was filed against the petitioners and the 1st accused, by the Detective Inspector, Crime Branch CID, Ernakulam.
3. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that none of the offences as alleged in the charge are attracted as against them. It is thus contended that the prosecution proceedings initiated against the petitioners, are liable to be terminated.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. Admittedly, the transaction of hire purchase in connection with the purchase of the mini lorry by the 1st accused, was between the 1st accused and the financial establishment. There is absolutely no case for the prosecution that the petitioners herein were parties to the loan agreement between the 1st accused and the defacto complainant. That being so, the transaction relating to the purchase of the mini lorry between the defacto complainant and the 1st accused, could no way to bind the petitioners herein. It cannot be said that petitioners are having any legal obligations in connection with the aforesaid vehicle, which the 1st accused had purchased from the defacto complainant on the basis of a hire purchase agreement. It may be true that the 1st accused might have entrusted the above vehicle to the petitioners herein, and they might have transferred it to some other persons. But for the aforesaid act, if done without the knowledge and consent of the defacto complainant, it is the 1st accused alone who could be held liable. The petitioners, who are not having any privity of contract with the defacto complainant, cannot be mulcted with criminal liability for breach of trust or cheating in connection with the transfer of possession of the vehicle which the 1st accused purchased from the defacto complainant. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioners resorted to any fraudulent and dishonest inducement upon the defacto complainant in connection with the loan transaction involved in this case. Nor could it be said that the defacto complainant had entrusted any property with the petitioners herein. In the above circumstances, the charge under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are prima facie not attracted against the petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to discharge them, is well founded. In the result, the petition stands allowed. The petitioners / accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.82 of 2004 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, are ordered to be discharged.
Sd/
G. GIRISH JUDGE
ded
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 4394/2006
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CC NO. 82/2004
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO. 238/CR/EKM/02
Annexure III CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE FRAMED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT DATED 2.8.2006