The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Arjun Krishna in a dispute over the ownership of a goods vehicle. The Court held that the complaint and the police final report failed to disclose the basic ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust, or forgery. Justice C.S. Dias passed the order on March 6, 2026 in Arjun Krishna v. Sudheesh, Crl.M.C. No. 2984 of 2025.

The petitioner was represented by Advocates Prabhu K. N., Athul Soman Thekkedath and K. Pankajakshan. The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The High Court quashed the complaint, FIR, and final report in C.C. No. 493 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Thamarassery. The case arose from Crime No.1057 of 2019 registered at Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Background Of The Dispute

The case originated from a complaint filed by Sudheesh, the first respondent and de facto complainant. The dispute concerned the ownership and operation of goods vehicle KL-73A-5253.

According to the complainant, he purchased the lorry on March 17, 2016 for approximately ₹12,10,600. He secured ₹9,07,000 as a vehicle loan from a financial institution. He also spent about ₹3,00,000 to build the body of the vehicle for commercial use.

After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant entered into an oral arrangement with the second accused. Under this arrangement, the complainant handed over the vehicle and its original documents to the second accused. The second accused agreed to operate the vehicle and pay the equated monthly instalments (EMIs) to the financier. He was also expected to return the vehicle once the loan was cleared.

The complainant claimed that witnesses were present when he entrusted the vehicle and documents. He stated that the arrangement was based on mutual trust.

Later, the complainant alleged that the second accused travelled abroad. Before leaving, he reportedly handed the vehicle to his brother Arjun Krishna, the present petitioner.

The complainant contacted the petitioner and demanded the return of the vehicle and documents. According to the complaint, the petitioner refused.

The complainant further alleged that the petitioner transferred the vehicle into his own name before the registering authority. He claimed that the petitioner forged his signature on documents used for the transfer.

Based on these allegations, the complainant approached the Magistrate. The Magistrate forwarded the complaint for investigation. The police registered an FIR and later filed a final report alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery.

Defence Submissions

Counsel for the petitioner challenged the prosecution on both factual and legal grounds.

The defence first argued that the dispute arose from a private arrangement between the complainant and the second accused. The petitioner was not part of that arrangement.

Counsel pointed out that the complainant himself admitted that he entrusted the vehicle to the second accused in 2016. The petitioner never induced the complainant to hand over the vehicle. Therefore, the essential requirement for Section 420 IPC was missing.

The defence emphasised that dishonest intention must exist at the beginning of the transaction to establish cheating. Since the petitioner was not involved at that stage, the offence could not be made out.

The defence also argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature. According to the petitioner, the complainant invoked criminal law to pressure him.

Regarding the charge under Section 406 IPC, the defence highlighted a crucial point. The complainant had admitted that he entrusted the vehicle only to the second accused. He never entrusted the vehicle to the petitioner. Since entrustment forms the basis of criminal breach of trust, the offence could not apply to the petitioner.

The defence also challenged the forgery allegations. Counsel argued that the investigation produced no reliable evidence to show that the petitioner forged the complainant’s signature.

The disputed documents were not sent for forensic examination. The prosecution also failed to produce scientific or independent evidence linking the petitioner to any forged documents.

The defence further raised a procedural objection. It argued that the complaint before the Magistrate was defective because it was not accompanied by a sworn affidavit.

Counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) and Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2022). These decisions require that complaints seeking investigation must be supported by an affidavit.

In the present case, the complaint was filed on October 17, 2019, while the affidavit was submitted only on October 23, 2019. The defence argued that the Magistrate should not have ordered investigation without the mandatory affidavit.

Court’s Analysis

Justice C.S. Dias examined the complaint, the investigation materials, and the legal principles governing the alleged offences.

The Court first addressed the allegation under Section 420 IPC. It relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala.

The Court reiterated that cheating requires fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of the transaction.

The complainant himself stated that he entrusted the vehicle to the second accused under an oral agreement. The petitioner had no role in that initial arrangement.

The Court observed that the petitioner entered the matter only later, when the second accused allegedly handed over the vehicle to him. In such circumstances, the petitioner could not have induced the complainant to part with the vehicle.

The Court also referred to Arshad Neyaz Khad v. State of Jharkhand (2025). It noted that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are legally distinct. One concerns breach of trust after entrustment, while the other involves deception at the beginning of the transaction.

Court On Forgery Allegations

The Court next examined the allegations of forgery.

It found that the prosecution had produced no material evidence to show that the petitioner forged the complainant’s signature.

The disputed documents were not subjected to forensic analysis. The investigation also failed to produce scientific or independent evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged forgery.

Witness statements only indicated that documents had been submitted before the registering authority. They did not prove that the petitioner created false documents or forged signatures.

Court On Procedural Defect

The High Court also examined the issue regarding the affidavit.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Priyanka Srivastava and Babu Venkatesh. These judgments require that a complaint seeking investigation must be supported by a sworn affidavit.

This requirement ensures accountability and prevents misuse of criminal proceedings.

In the present case, the affidavit was filed after the complaint had already been lodged. Therefore, the Magistrate should not have entertained the complaint at that stage.

Final Decision

After examining the allegations and the investigation materials, the Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

Justice C.S. Dias held that even if the prosecution case was accepted in full, the allegations did not disclose the ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 or 471 IPC against the petitioner.

The Court observed that the real dispute arose from the oral arrangement between the complainant and the second accused. It also found no material showing that the petitioner induced the complainant to part with the vehicle.

The Court noted the absence of scientific evidence for forgery and the procedural defect regarding the affidavit.

Considering all these factors, the Court held that the prosecution served no legitimate purpose and would only cause unnecessary harassment.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case. It quashed Annexure A1 complaint, Annexure A3 FIR, Annexure A4 final report, and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 493 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Thamarassery, insofar as they related to the petitioner.

With this ruling, the High Court brought the criminal proceedings against Arjun Krishna to an end.