Petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No.254 of 2011 on the files of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur arising from crime No.1352 of 2011 of Thrissur Town East Police Station. He stands indicted for offences punishable under sections 420 and 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with accused Nos.1 and 2. This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is filed seeking quashment of Annexure-A5 final report and all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.254 of 2011 on the files of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur.
2. A succinct narration of the facts is necessary for a proper disposal of this case. The allegation against the petitioner is that in respect of the property belonging to the 1st and 2nd accused in C.C.No.254 of 2011 having an extent of 26½ cents comprised in survey Nos.283/18A and 283/18B of Valakam village, accused 1 and 2 entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant/second respondent herein and towards the total sale consideration of `30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs) an advance amount of `15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) was received by them from the defacto complainant. Accused 1 and 2 with the mala fide intention to cheat the defacto complainant, in collusion with the petitioner herein registered a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and thereby committed the alleged offences. The said case of the prosecution is obvious from Annexure- A1 as follows:-
1©¢ 2©¢ dÉÄßµ{áæ¿ çÉøßÜáUÄᢠÕÞ{µ¢ ÕßçÜï¼ßW ØíÅßÄß æºÏîáKÄáÎÞÏ Õà¿á¢ ÕØñáÕµµ{ᢠ30 Üf¢ øâÉÏíAí ¦ÕÜÞÄßAÞøÈí ÈWµÞæÎKí ÉùEí µøÞæùÝáÄß 10.02.10 ÄßÏîÄß ÄcÖâV µßÝçAçµÞGÏßW æÕºîí dÉÄßµZ 15 Üf¢ øâÉ èµMxß. ®KÞW µøÞV ÕcÕØíÅÏíAí ÕßÉøàÄÎÞÏß ¦ÕÜÞÄßAÞøÈí ÕØñáÕµµZ ÄàæùÝáÄß æµÞ¿áAÞæÄ dÉÄßµ{áæ¿ ©xÌtáÕÞÏ 3_Þ0 dÉÄßAí çÎWÉùE ÕØñáÕµµZ èµÎÞx¢ È¿Jß ¦ÕÜÞÄßAÞøæÈ ÕßÖbÞØ ÕFÈ æºÏñᢠºÄßæºÏñᢠ1 ÎáÄW 3 µâ¿ßÏ dÉÄßµZ µcÄcJßÈí ©ÄíØÞÙßµ{ᢠØÙÞÏßµ{áÎÞÏß ÕVJßºî µÞøc¢.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. True, the case of the second respondent is that the aforementioned property belonging to accused 1 and 2, having an extent of 26½ cents was agreed to be purchased by him for a sale consideration of `30,00,000/- as per agreement dated 10.2.2010 and towards the sale consideration, he had advanced an amount of `15,00,000/- to accused 1 and 2. The accused 1 and 2 instead of effecting the sale of the property in favour of the defacto complainant sold the property to the petitioner herein, the 3rd accused. The core contention of the petitioner is that even if the allegations in Annexure- A5 final report in their entirety are taken as true and correct, they would not constitute the alleged offences or any offence at all against the petitioner. Going by Annexure- A5, it is evident that the allegation is that the property in question was belonging to accused 1 and 2 and that they had entered into an agreement for sale with the second respondent and towards the sale consideration he had advanced an amount of `15,00,000/- to accused 1 and 2. Thus, it is obvious that even going by the final report, there is no case that the defacto complainant had entrusted any property with the petitioner and according to him, the money was received by accused Nos.1 and 2. In the context of the contentions, it is relevant to refer to section 405 IPC. Going by section 405, to attract an offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under section 406 IPC the following ingredients are required:-
1. Entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property.
2. That person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so as to do in violation-
(i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or
(ii) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.
4. Thus, it is obvious that it applies to one who is, in any manner entrusted with property or dominion over property when dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use the said property. Satisfaction of those ingredients are sufficient to attract the offence of criminal breach of trust. True that with respect to the property falling within the sweep of this section its disposal must be in violation of a direction of law or of a legal contract by the parties in order to make it punishable under section 406, IPC. The specific case of the second respondent/defacto complainant as also the case evident from Annexure-A5 final report is that at the time of registration of the property including the one which was purchased by the petitioner as per sale deed dated 20.4.2011 which forms part of 26½ cents, an agreement for sale was executed between accused 1 and 2 and the defacto complainant and in other words, it was agreed to be sold by accused 1 and 2 to the defacto complainant. Normally, this Court will not look into documents produced along with the petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. However, it is to be noted that in the decision in Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley reported in 2011(3) SCC 351, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that consideration of defence at prima facie stage by High Courts under revisional power or inherent power is not absolutely barred. In order to prevent injustice or abuse of process or to promote justice High Court may look into the materials which have significant bearing on the matter at prima facie stage, it was further held. Thus, there can be no doubt that looking into materials at this stage in this proceedings is permissible if those materials have significant bearing on the matter, to prevent injustice or to promote justice. Along with this petition, the petitioner has produced the lawyer notice sent to him by the second respondent/defacto complainant. Though the second respondent entered appearance in this case pursuant to the receipt of notice, he had not disputed the factum of issuance of Annexure-A3 notice to the petitioner. True that in Annexure-A3, it is stated that after the expiry of the period without any change in the terms or conditions of the agreement dated 10.2.2010 the period of agreement was extended by accused 1 and 2 till 9.11.2011. Evidently, the property was purchased by the petitioner after the expiry of the period of 11 months since the date of agreement dated 10.2.2010 viz., on 20.4.2011. Nobody got a case that the agreement for sale is a document which is to be compulsorily registered or, in this case got registered and evidently, at the time of purchase of the property as per sale deed dated 20.4.2011, the specific contention of the petitioner is that there was no registered encumbrance in respect of the property purchased by him. Be that as it may, it is evident that there is absolutely no case for the prosecution, as is evident from Annexure-A1 and A5, that any property was entrusted to the petitioner. The ingredients of section 405 which is punishable under section 406 IPC are not at all satisfied in the allegations against the petitioner who is implicated in the aforesaid crime. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that no charge under section 405 IPC punishable 406 IPC would lie against the petitioner. The petitioner is also indicted for an offence under section 420 IPC. In Annexure-A5, there is absolutely nothing which would prima facie show that the petitioner has dishonestly induced the second respondent to deliver any property to himself or to any person or made or altered or destroyed the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted to a valuable security. There is no case for the prosecution that the petitioner made any false representation knowing it to be false at the time of making of the agreement. In fact, the petitioner is not at all a party to the agreement in question and there is no case for the second respondent that the petitioner was having ownership over the property at the time of execution of the agreement dated 10.2.2010. To attract an offence punishable under section 420 I.P.C, evidently, certain ingredients are to be satisfied. For the offence of cheating there must be a deception which should precede the fraudulent or dishonest inducement and it must be established that the intention of the accused was dishonest at the time of making the promise. In other words, the ingredients of the offence under section 420, IPC are not only that the accused has cheated some one but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who was cheated to deliver property. There is absolute absence of any specific accusation against the petitioner, the third accused. The second respondent did not have any case at all that the petitioner was having any control or possession or ownership over the aforesaid property or that the petitioner induced the second respondent-complainant to advance an amount of `15,00,000/- to accused 1 and 2 towards sale consideration with the intention of deceiving. At any rate, Annexure- A5 does not make out any of the ingredients to attract an offence under section 420, I.P.C also as against the petitioner. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that when a final report laid after the completion of the investigation in a crime does not make out commission of the offence/offences allegedly committed by the accused such a person cannot be made to stand the trial. Annexure- A1 FIR and Annexure-A5 final report prima facie do not disclose any triable offence against the petitioner. When there is not even a scintilla of suspicion of criminal liability as against the petitioner/the third accused, allowing continuance of proceedings against him will be a cause of harassment of the petitioner. I am of the view that allowing continuation of proceedings against the petitioner based on Annexure-A5 in C.C.No.254 of 2011 on the files of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur would amount to abuse of process of court. In such circumstances, Annexure-A5 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.No.254 of 2011 on the files of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur to the extent it pertains to the petitioner is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed.
This criminal miscellaneous case is allowed to the above extent.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010