2nd accused in C.C.No.123/2010 filed the Criminal Revision Petition No.1885/2014 against the dismissal of the application for discharge namely C.M.P.No.427/2012 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Harippad, and Crl.M.C.No.5186/2014 was filed by the same accused for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the points to be considered in both the cases are same, this court felt that, both can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The complainant in these cases, who is the first respondent herein filed a private complaint against three accused persons including the present petitioner, alleging that, on the basis of the inducement made by the present petitioner that, he will get a better policy, went to the office of the Kayamkulam Branch of the Life Insurance Corporation and as instructed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 with the help of the 3rd accused, he took Ext.P3 policy on the assumption that, he is getting a better policy as promised by the accused persons and he had deposited some amount also. But later he came to understand that, it was a pension policy and not the policy which was intended to be given and thereby all of them have committed the offence punishable under Section 120(B), 415 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case was sent for investigation and a crime was registered as Crime No.27/2008 of Thrikkunnappuzha police station and after investigation, Annexure-B refer report was filed, stating that, it is a case of mistake of fact. Thereafter, the first respondent filed a protest complaint and after enquiry, the learned magistrate took cognisance of the case as C.C.No.123/2010 against three accused persons including the petitioner only for the offence under Section 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal code. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.427/2012 for discharge and after the evidence offence under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was taken, the learned magistrate dismissed the application. This is being challenged by the petitioner by filing Crl.R.P.No.1885/2014. He has also filed Crl.M.C.No.5186/2014 for quashing the proceedings as well. Since there was delay in filing the revision petition, notice was issued to the respondent and though it was served, he did not appear and the delay was condoned and revision was admitted. Similarly, in the petition, Section 482 of the Code also notice was served, but there was no appearance for the respondent. So this court felt that, this can be disposed of after hearing the counsel for the revision petitioner and the petitioner in both the cases and also the Public Prosecutor.
4. The counsel for the petitioner in both the cases submitted that, the 3rd accused was discharged by the court below itself and the first accused also filed similar application for discharge and that was dismissed and the first accused filed Crl. R.P.No.1042/2012 against the order in the discharge application and also filed Crl.M.C.1413/2012 for quashing the proceedings and this court by Annexure-D order allowed the Crl.M.C. No.1413/2012 and quashed the proceedings as against the first accused. Since, case against the accused Nos.1 and 3 have been quashed and discharged, no offence against the petitioner will lie and he is also entitled to get that benefit.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that, it is on the basis of the inducement made by the 2nd accused who is the petitioner herein that the policy was taken.
6. The case of the complainant in the complaint was that, on account of the acquaintance with the 2nd accused, the petitioner herein, who is a L.I.C. agent, he took a policy on 19.03.2006. According to the complainant it was represented that a policy under particular scheme will provide 8% interest per annum and after 15 years, the complainant would get good bonus and also the deposited money back and it was on that representation that he went to their office at Kayamkulam and as instructed by accused Nos.1 and 3 and the 2nd accused, he had taken Ext.P3 police by depositing ₹10,00,000/-, but the policy issued was Jeevan Akshay scheme and not the intended policy as represented by the accused persons. He filed the complaint only in the year 2008, after three years of getting the policy and on the basis of Annexure-A complaint which was sent to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code and a crime was registered as Crime No.27/2008 of Thrikkunnapuzha police station and after investigation, they referred the case as mistake of fact vide Annexure-D refer report and thereafter the petitioner filed objection to the refer report and it was on that basis the learned magistrate took cognisance of the case as C.C.No.123/2010 against the accused persons. Thereafter PWs 1 and 2 were examined and it was posted for hearing on the question of framing charge and at that time the present petitioner and the first accused filed application for discharge and both the applications were dismissed by the court below. The court below decided to frame charge against accused Nos. 1 and 2 alone and discharged the 3rd accused, as there is no evidence to connect him in the transaction. This order is being challenged by the petitioner by fling the criminal revision and also for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. It is also seen from the Annexure- D order of this court that, first accused filed similar revision as Crl.R.P.1042/2012 against the dismissal of the application for discharge and Crl.M.C.No.1413/2012 for quashing the proceedings as against him and this court after considering elaborately the legal position, came to the conclusion that, no offence under Section 415, 420 and 120(B) are attracted as against the first accused and quashed the proceedings as against him. If the case against the first accused will not stand, then the 2nd accused also put in the same position, as according to the complainant both the 2nd accused and the first accused conspired together and committed the offence. Further he had no case that, he had not received any policy and he was not getting the interest or the actual returns of the policy. So it cannot be believed for a moment, after two years of receiving the policy and getting the benefit that he had come to understand only now that he was cheated. So under the circumstances, there is no offence under Section 415 or 420 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code is attracted as against the petitioner also made out. So under the circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of Annexure-D order. So the case against the petitioner in C.C.No.123/2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Harippad, is also liable to be quashed. Since, the case against the present petitioner has been quashed, no separate order need be passed in Crl.R.P.No.1885/2014. So Crl.M.C.No.5186/2014 is allowed and case against the petitioner in C.C.No.123/2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Harippad, is quashed. Since the case against the petitioner is quashed, no separate order need be passed in Crl.R.P.No.1885/2014 and the same is closed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss