SUBRAMANIYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitioners are seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No. 239/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Thiruvananthapuram. The 2nd respondent herein is the complainant therein. It was a case where a private complaint was filed by the de facto complainant which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure -A1 is a copy of the First Information Report wherein there are four accused persons. A copy of the refer charge is produced as Annexure -A2. Thereafter a protest complaint was filed as per Annexure -A3. After taking the sworn statement of the de facto complainant, the case was taken into file as C.C. No. 239/2003. It is a case where the allegation is that the accused 1 and 2 namely, petitioners herein were having landed property measuring 41.2 cents. For finding out the purchasers of the said property, they approached the de facto complainant and promised him to pay 1% of the sale proceeds as commission. The 4th accused was the agent of the 3rd accused. The 4th accused approached the complainant and told him that the 3rd accused was interested to purchase the property. They also promised that 1% of the purchase amount will be given to him as commission.

(2.) AFTER execution of the document, accused 1 and 2 received the amount. Thereafter the complainant approached the 1st accused for payment of commission who refused to pay the same. It is stated that the de facto complainant then approached the 1st accused but even thereafter the amount was not paid. It is averred in the Crl. M.C. that the accused 1 and 2 are permanently residing in Chennai and they wanted to dispose of their property. It is also stated that no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

(3.) EVIDENTLY , the above findings are attracted as far as the petitioners are also concerned. It is a case where the complainant has not succeeded at least prima facie that the accused had any dishonest intention to cheat him at the initial stage itself. The petitioners were owners of the property and evidently the property was purchased by the 3rd accused and it appears that the 3rd accused purchased the property through the assistance of the 4th accused. Both of them have been exonerated from the criminal liability, as per Annexure -A6 order. I respectfully agree with the view taken therein. In a matter like this, it cannot be said that the ingredients under Section 420 IPC are attracted. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the complaint made by him is justified and therefore, the offences are made out. But, going by the admitted facts, no offence is made out. The Crl. M.C. is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 239/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate