CRL.MC No. 612 of 2012 · Kerala High Court

Crl.MC.No. 612 of 2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A :A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.741 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MUSUEM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WITH CMP NO.2025/2011 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.ANNEXURE B :TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND ABDUL REHIM DATED 27.08.2006.ANNEXURE C :TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXECUTED BETWEEN ABDUL RAHIM AS 1ST PARTY AND THE DEFACTOCOMPLAINANT AND OTHERS AS 2ND PARTY DATED 16.08.2008.ANNEXURE D :TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO. 874 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 25.07.2011.RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:NIL //TRUE COPY//P.A.TO JUDGE.Msd. A.HARIPRASAD, J.---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.612 of 2012----------------------------------------Dated this the 30th day of July, 2014ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.3 to 6 in Crime No.741 of2011 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Theyalong with other accused are implicated in the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode. Annexure-A is the F.I.R. Gist of allegation against the petitioners is as follows. The de facto complainant filed aprivate complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the said offence against the accused persons and it was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to that the crime was registered. Annexure-B is the agreement to sell the property belonging to the petitioners, in favour of the4th respondent. Admittedly, the petitioners own nearly 40 acres of land, out of which 2.98 acres were agreed to be sold to the4th respondent. He in turn agreed to sell a larger extent to thede facto complainant and obtained advance from the de factocomplainant. When the sale could not be materialized, the 4threspondent issued cheques in return of the money to the de Crl.M.C.No.612 of 20122facto complainant, which was bounced. In this backdrop the defacto complainant filed criminal case against the accused persons.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

The parties have entered into legal battle in a civil suit also in respect of the same agreement. The suit is pending before the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram asO.S.No.874 of 2011. The predominant nature of dispute is that of a civil case. Complaint raised is regarding non-performanceof the agreement (Annexure-B). Therefore I am of the view that the criminal prosecution is an abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, I find in the interest of justice that the prosecution against the petitioners has to be terminated. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A F.I.R in Crime No.741 of 2011 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, insofar as it relates the petitioners, is hereby quashed. Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.AS