SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 ('the Code' for the sake of brevity) is preferred, challenging the proceedings in Crime No.254/2023 of the Cheranalloor Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered against the petitioner at the instance of the 3rd respondent under Ss. 406, 420, and 506 of the IPC.

(2.) Facts in brief: On 3/3/2023, a complaint was lodged at Cheranalloor Police Station by the complainant/3rd respondent against the petitioner, an Advocate with about two decades standing at the Bar. The complainant, in his complaint, alleges that his estranged wife engaged the petitioner as her advocate to represent her in the various disputes between them. These litigations were scattered across various courts, including one at the Judicial Magistrate of First Class in Aluva, while the others were at the Family Court of Ernakulam. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner offered to take a beneficial position in favor of the complainant in return for a payment of Rs.10.00 lakhs. Additionally, there was a covert threat suggesting that the complainant's passport would be blocked, hindering his overseas employment, if he did not comply. On 15/12/2013, at about 7:30 am, the complainant alleges that he went to the residence of the petitioner and handed over a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs, and the said transaction was witnessed by the wife of the petitioner. The complainant states that he firmly believed that cases instituted against him by his wife would be withdrawn and the payment made by him would be handed over to his wife. However, only one case ' the one pending before the Judicial Magistrate ' was withdrawn. He later realized no such payment was made to his wife, and according to him, the petitioner defrauded him. The complainant explained the 10-year lag in lodging the complaint on his fear of retaliation at the hands of the petitioner.

(3.) Contentions advanced by Sri. Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as instructed by Sri M.R. Nandakumar, the learned counsel, are as under: