LAWS(KER)-2019-4-108

DEEPU MOHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On April 09, 2019
Deepu Mohan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed by the common petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.47 of 2018 of the Thalappuzha Police Station and Crime No. 207 of 2018 of the Manathavady Police Station. In these crimes, he along with 3 others are accused of having committed offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C.

(2.) The allegations in both these crimes are more or less identical in nature. The de facto complainant in both the cases are farmers engaged in the cultivation of pepper. They allege that the petitioner along with one Jithu @ Jithin, Unus, and one Rajesh approached them and offered to purchase their pepper produce for a price which was much higher than the market value by inducing them to believe that it was for the purpose of export. They were told that 10% of the value would be handed over and for the balance amount postdated cheques would be issued. Believing the words of the accused, the farmers handed over their entire produce to the accused and 10% of the value was handed over by way of cash. For the balance amount separate cheques were issued on an account maintained by Jithu. The cheques, when presented, were dishonoured for want of funds. Though the farmers approached the accused demanding the amount, they evaded from the same. Left with no alternative, they approach the Police and gave information based on which the above crimes were registered.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in the complaint will not make out an offence against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the transaction was between the de facto complainant in the respective cases and Jithu, and it was Jithu who had issued the cheque which was later dishonoured. It is further urged that the allegations, even if it is admitted as true in its entirety, would only make out a case of breach of contract and nothing more. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner had fraudulent intent at the inception, contends the learned counsel.