IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 403 of 2008()
1. GEETHA DEVI, D/O. SAVITHRI AMMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :10/09/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No.403 OF 2008
===========================
Dated this the 10th day of September,2009
ORDER
Petitioner the accused in Crime No.512/2007 on the
file of Venjeramoodu Police Station filed this petition
under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash the F.I.R and all further proceedings pursuant to
it. Annexure-I F.I.R is registered on the sworn
statement of the de facto complainant. As seen from
Annexure II F.I. Statement the case is that on
14.11.2005 an agreement for sale was entered into by
the petitioner with Ahammadali, the de facto
complainant whereunder after receiving an advance of
Rs.17,000/- towards consideration of the property,
petitioner agreed to execute a sale deed in respect of
her 10 cents of property within a period of three
months. The defacto complainant contended that though
he was prepared to pay the balance consideration ande
to get the sale deed executed, petitioner with a
dishonest intention to cheat did not execute the sale
deed and thereby committed the offence under section
420 of Indian Penal Code. Case of the petitioner is
Crl.M.C.403/2008 2
that ingredients of an offence under section 420 of Indian
Penal Code is not attracted on the allegations in the F.I
statement and therefore it is to be quashed.
2. It is seen that eventhough the petition was filed
as early as on 28.1.2008 and the petition was admitted, no
order of stay was granted. Therefore the investigation
was allowed to be continued. When the F.I.R is to be
quashed, necessarily petitioner has to implead the de facto
complainant. The de facto complainant was not impleaded.
Instead only the State was impleaded in the petition. In
such circumstance, I find no necessity to quash Annexure I
F.I.R as sought for. If after investigation the final
report is submitted and cognizance was taken by the learned
Magistrate, petitioner is at liberty to seek an order of
discharge from the learned Magistrate under section 239 of
Code of Criminal Procedure. If final report is not filed,
petitioner is at liberty either to challenge the final
report on its filing, before this court or to seek an order
of discharge from the learned Magistrate.
Petition is disposed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
Crl.M.C.403/2008 3
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).NO. /06
---------------------
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006