V M HABEEBULLA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in a prosecution under Section 406 and 420 read with 120 B I.P.C. They have come to this Court with a prayer that the prosecution initiated against them may be quashed by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Brief reference to facts may be necessary in the matter. The defacto complainant alleged that he had entered into an agreement with the 1st accused on 26.02.2003 regarding sale of land along with a match factory. The total sale consideration was allegedly fixed at Rs.48 lakhs. An amount of Rs.47 lakhs had allegedly been paid prior to that date. The balance of Rs.1 lakh was liable to be paid. There was some disagreement between the parties later and the agreement did not actually come into effect. It is the case of the defacto complainant that on 18.03.03, he was fraudulently deceived to go to the accused who were waiting for him near his bank at Ernakulam and handover the original of the said agreement dt.26.02.03. He was deceived to believe that the original document must be handed over to enable the accused persons to raise amounts on loan from the bank. The defacto complainant was allegedly deceived and he actually went to the scene of the crime with the document. But according to him, the document was snatched away from his possession and it was torn and destroyed by the accused. No complaint appears to have been filed on 18.03.2003 or shortly thereafter. Long later, on 29.10.03, a private complaint was filed before the Magistrate raising the above said allegations. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police registered Crime No.838/2003 of Central Police Station, Cochin City under Sections 390, 406, 420, 421, 423, 425, 464, 477 & 120 B read with Section 34 I.P.C. Investigation was conducted by the police and long later, they filed the final report raising allegations against the petitioners only under Section 120 B, 406 and 420 read with 34 I.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are inherently improbable and unworthy of acceptance. The delay in filing the complaint, the embellishments which have now been brought about as also the fact that the police after investigation has found a substantial portion of the allegations unacceptable (ie. the allegations regarding forcible snatching away of the original agreement)must persuade this Court to invoke its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to premature termination this unworthy prosecution, it is contended. At least further investigation under Section 173 (8) may be ordered, it is prayed.