Wife Exaggerating Husband's Income In Maintenance Affidavit Is Not Perjury: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Husband's Section 340 Application Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Missing Disclaimers In Form-26 Supplied By Returning Officer: Bombay High Court Dismissal Without Departmental Enquiry Violates Natural Justice When Criminal Conviction Is Set Aside: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement Cipla MD Gets Relief: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Drug Prosecution For Absence of Specific Averment on Day-to-Day Role Mandatory Notice Under Section 106(3) Railways Act Applies To 'Overcharges', Not 'Illegal Charges': Gauhati High Court Insurer Can't Escape Paying Accident Victims Even With Invalid Licence Defence — Avoidance Clause In Policy Seals Liability: Gujarat High Court Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts — Once A Claim Is Founded On Fraud, The Entire Edifice Of The Claim Collapses And No Relief Can Be Granted: Supreme Court Like Cases Must Be Decided Alike": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay Service Benefits To Deceased Employee's Heirs Claiming Parity Ancient Jain Idol Cannot Remain In Police Custody Under Treasure Trove Act: Allahabad High Court Orders Transfer To Museum Income Tax | Receivables For Warranty Reimbursements Constitute An 'Asset' Under Section 153A For Reopening Assessment: Delhi High Court Married Persons Cannot Claim Police Protection For Live-In Relationships Without First Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad High Court Breach Of Private Compromise Cannot Ipso Facto Trigger Cancellation Of Probation Granted On Legally Sustainable Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Interference Under Article 226 In Eviction Proceedings When Land Compensation Is Deposited In Competent Court: Kerala High Court "Immediately Preceding Three Years" For Land Compensation Must Be Calculated From Date Of Section 11 Notification, Not Calendar Year: Jharkhand High Court Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Attributed To Minor Children; State Strictly Liable For Unsecured Hazardous Reservoirs: J&K High Court Party Seeking Transfer Can't Hide Pending Transfer Petition From High Court: Karnataka HC Quashes Transfer Order Mother Can Represent Muslim Minor As 'Next Friend' In Civil Suit As CPC Provisions Are Secular And Not Tied To Personal Law: Calcutta High Court First Appellate Court Must Frame Points For Determination Under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, Cannot Remand Cryptically: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Recovery Of Stolen Property Cannot Be Sole Basis For Murder Conviction If Chain Of Circumstances Is Broken: Bombay High Court MP Constable's Shell Company, Rs.6.44 Crore Properties, Ghost Cooperative Society: HC Rejects PMLA Bail of Director Who Had 'No Financial Capability' To Buy What He Bought

High Court of Kerala Upholds Dismissal of Discharge in Property Fraud Case –Substantial Differences in Allegations and Complainants in Both FIRs

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on December 1, 2023, the High Court of Kerala, presided over by Honorable Mr. Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, upheld the dismissal of discharge applications in the linked criminal revision petitions numbered 355 and 379 of 2019. The petitions challenged an earlier order concerning alleged offenses related to property fraud and forgery, involving the impersonation of U. Raghavan in property sales.

The court’s decision hinged on the principle that “there cannot be two FIRs for the same incident,” a legal point scrutinized extensively during the proceedings. However, Justice Ajithkumar observed substantial differences in the FIRs in question, stating, “Both FIRs pertain to different aspects of the alleged offense, leading to the dismissal of the revision petitions.”

The case centered around the allegations against Mohammed Kunhi, the fourth accused, who was alleged to have executed a fraudulent sale deed in favor of respondent V. Hashim, after acquiring property through forged documents. The court meticulously examined whether the FIRs were based on the same set of facts and found significant distinctions.

Justice Ajithkumar highlighted, “Allegations in the two F.I.Rs. have substantial difference. The complainants are different. All the accused are not common.” This observation was crucial in determining that the cases did not attract the prohibition of a second FIR for the same incident, a point that was contested by the petitioners.

The judgment also referenced several precedent cases, including the principles laid down in landmark decisions such as ‘T.T Antony v. State of Kerala and others [(2001) 6 SCC 181]’ and ‘Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and others [(2004) 13 SCC 292]’. These cases provided a legal framework for understanding the intricacies of FIR registrations and their implications in criminal law.

Date of Decision: 1st December 2023

Mohammed Kunhi VS State of Kerala and V. Hashim     

Latest Legal News