KRISHNANKUTTY U P, vs STATE OF KERALA,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
THURSDAY, THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 23RD ASWINA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 6502 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1000/2023 OF Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
KRISHNANKUTTY U P,
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.PUSHPANGATHAN, UTTOLY HOUSE, AMBALLUR,
PUTHUKKAD P.O.THRISSUR, PIN - 680301
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SHRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT
SHRI.MAHESH BHANU S.
SHRI.RESSIL LONAN
SHRI.JOEL GEORGE KAMPIYIL
SHRI.ANANTH KRISHNA K.S.
SHRI.GEORGE VINCI JOSE
RESPONDENT (S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT :
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 JAYAKRISHNA MENON,
S/O GAURIDASAN NAIR,AKKANANTHU VEEDU,
PUTHUPALLY NORTH, PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690527
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
SRI.D.JAYAKRISHNAN
SHRI.VIVEK NAIR P.
SHRI.M.R.RADHAKRISHNAN
SHRI VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON
SHRI.G.GOWARDHAN DEV G. NAIR
SHRI.K.S.ARAVIND
SHRI.V.ASWIN
SMT.GARGI RAMACHANDRAN
SHRI.SHIBU S.
SR PP SAJEEV P K
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
2
2026:KER:79734
“C.R.”
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
================================
th
Dated this the 15 day of October, 2026
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No.
1000/2023 of Karunagappally Police Station, where the prosecution
alleges commission of offences under Section 406 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”). The prayers
in this Crl.M.C. are as under:
“For these and other grounds that may be urged at the
time of hearing it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to quash the Annxure-1 F.I.S and
Annexure-2 F.I.R in crime no.1000 of 2023 of Karunagapally
police station and all further proceedings pursuant to the
same.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
nd
counsel appearing for the 2 respondent and the learned Public

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
3
2026:KER:79734
st
Prosecutor, appearing for the 1 respondent/State of Kerala. Perused
the available records and relevant decisions.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that, in fact, originally, the elephant in dispute was handed over to
the petitioner by one Sadhanandan, as per Annexure A3, along with
the original documents, who, in fact, got custody of the same in
2017 as per Annexure A4 document. Since then, the elephant has
been in the ownership and possession of the petitioner.
4. According to him, going through Annexure A1
complaint, which led to the registration of Annexure A2 FIR, prima
facie , none of the offences could be found and, therefore, the
registration of Annexure A2 FIR, and further steps thereof are abuse
of the process of the Court. As such, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
5. The grounds urged in the Crl.M.C., starting from ‘B’ to
‘J’, have been reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
which read as under:
“B. Even if the allegations made in the F.I.S and F.I.R are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety it

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
4
2026:KER:79734
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused justifying investigation by
police officers.
C. The essential ingredients of the alleged offences, under
sections 406 and 420 of IPC, is not present in the F.I.S
and F.I.R and the uncontroverted allegations therein do
not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioner.
D. It is trite law that the offence of cheating and breach of
trust are mutually exclusive offences and both the
offences cannot co-exist simultaneously. Although both
the offences involve dishonest intention they are different
in basic concept. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd and others Vs State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 10SCC690 has
reiterated this position of law. In this context the
following observations in the judgment in para 54 and 55
of the above judgment is extracted hereunder for easy
reference:
“54. .................In contrast, when a case arises
from an FIR, this responsibility is of the police to
thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations levelled
by the informant indeed fall under the category of
cheating or criminal breach of trust. Unfortunately, it
has become a common practice for the police officers
to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an
FIR for both the offences i.e. criminal breach of trust
and cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty
or fraud, without any proper application of mind.
55. It is high time that the police officers across the
country are imparted proper training in law so as to

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
5
2026:KER:79734
understand the fine distinction between the offence of
cheating vis-a-vis criminal breach of trust. Both
offences are independent and distinct. The two
offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set
of facts. They are antithetical to each other. The two
provisions of IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that
they cannot survive without each other."
The above dictum is squarely applicable to the facts of
the case.
E. The allegations made by the informant lack the legal
foundation to support claims of cheating and breach of
trust, whether considered jointly or independently.
F. To attract the offence of cheating as defined under
section 415 and punishable under section 420 of IPC, it
is necessary that the F.I.R should make out a case of
intentional inducement, dishonesty or fraudulence. It is
submitted that neither the complaint nor the F.I.R make
out a case of any inducement, fraud or dishonesty on the
part of the petitioner.
G. The key ingredient of cheating is the existence of
fraudulent or dishonest intention right at the beginning of
the transaction. It is also settled by judicial
pronouncements that breach of contract does not give
rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless
fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the
beginning of the transaction and merely allegation of
failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate
criminal proceedings. The specific allegation made in the

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
6
2026:KER:79734
complaint is that as the elephant was in musth it was
entrusted to the petitioner for some time as he was
owning many elephants and had ample land to look after
the elephant. The further allegation is that when the
informant sought the return of the elephant though the
petitioner promised to return the elephant after the
festival season he failed to keep up the promise and did
not return the elephant. The nature of allegation being
such it is clear the allegations do not disclose the
essential ingredients of cheating alleged against the
petitioner. There is no allegation that any person
deceived the informant and fraudulently and dishonestly
induced him to deliver the property whereas the
allegation made is that in order to protect his interest on
his own volition the elephant was given to the
petitioner .The fact being so the offence of cheating will
not be attracted in this case. In Rekha Jain v. State of
Karnataka and Another AIR 2020 SC 2268, the
Honorable Supreme Court has held that, "In the absence
of any allegation of inducement by accused, accused
cannot be prosecuted for the offence under S.420. There
must be a dishonest intention by the accused."
H. The essential ingredients to attract an offence under
section 406 of IPC are the entrustment of property to the
accused, the accused doing the act with the dishonest
intention to cause wrongful loss or gain, the accused

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
7
2026:KER:79734
misappropriating, converting or disposing of property in
a manner that is not authorized by trust. By no stretch of
imagination, the above ingredients are made out in this
case
I. If it is assumed that the elephant is a property, in this
case the petitioner obtained the custody of the property
by a deed of gift. In a transaction of gift the property in
goods passes to the donee from the donor once the
property is delivered and accepted. When property in
goods has passed to the petitioner there is no question of
any entrustment of property. Hence the prosecution on
the charges of criminal breach of trust is flawed to the
core.
J. The gift deeds produced as Annexure-3 and 4 clearly and
categorically establishes the claim of the informant that
the property was entrusted to the petitioner is nothing but
a totally false and baseless allegation.”
6. The learned Public Prosecutor filed a report submitted by
the Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappally Police Station. In the
report, the matters revealed during investigation have been narrated
in detail in paragraph Nos.1, 3 and 4, as under:
“1. During the investigation, it was revealed that one
Sadanandan K.V., aged 72, son of Velayudhan, residing at
Kollarayil house in Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District, had

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
8
2026:KER:79734
donated the elephant named Raman to Mata
Amritanandamayi Math in 1999 when it was 1.5 years old.
The elephant remained at the Math until it was 18 years old.
When the elephant developed musth at that age and caused
fear among devotees visiting the Math, the Math authorities
requested Sadanandan to take the elephant back. Accordingly,
Sadanandan, along with his relative Krishnankutty, came to
the Ashram and handed over the elephant to Krishnankutty for
care and treatment. It was found that the elephant is presently
in the custody of Krishnankutty. Though he had promised to
return the elephant in 2022, he failed to do so.
....................................................................................................
3. As per the order of the Honorable Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, the elephant Raman,
located at the property of Krishnankutty (son of
Pushpangadan) at Ultolyil house, Amballoor, Pudukkad P.O.,
in Alagappa Nagar Panchayat, Thrissur District, was
identified and taken into custody in the presence of Assistant
Forest Veterinary Officer Ashokan and Section Forest Officer
Premnath, and documented through a mahazar.
4. When requested to issue a fitness certificate to
transport the elephant to Kollam, Assistant Forest Veterinary
Officer Ashokan informed that due to the elephant being in
musth, it was not possible to transport it safely by vehicle or
any other means, and hence he could not issue a fitness
certificate. Therefore, as it was not possible to safely transport

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
9
2026:KER:79734
the elephant to Kollam, and since the elephant cannot be
transferred without court orders, temporary custody of the
elephant was entrusted to Krishnankutty under conditions
specified in a bond (kachit).”
nd
7. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/2
respondent raised contentions in tune with the written counter
nd
affidavit filed by the 2 respondent. The following grounds have
been urged to defeat the prayers in the Crl.M.C:
nd
“1. I am the 2 respondent in the above Crl. M.C. and the
De-facto complainant in Crime No. 1000/2023 of the
Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam district. I am
filing this counter affidavit in answer to the contentions
raised in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner in
compliance with the directions contained in the Order
dated 09.09.2025 of this Hon'ble court in this Crl.M.C.
2. When this matter came up for consideration before this
Hon'ble Court on 09.09.2025, this Hon'ble Court was
enlightened by the Respondent that the Petitioner had
filed another Crl.M.C No. 4989/2024 before this Hon'ble
Court for quashing the very same Crime No. 1000/2023
of Karunagappally Police Station and suppressing that
material fact the present Crl.M.C. was filed. Therefore
this Hon'ble Court had directed the Petitioner to get
specific instructions as to why proceedings should not be

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
10
2026:KER:79734
initiated against him for deceiving this Hon'ble Court by
filing the present Crl.M.C.
3. Accordingly the Petitioner had filed an affidavit dated
21.09.2025 on 23.09.2025 seeking apology and
nd st
explaining about the filing of the 2 Crl.M.C., while 1
Crl.M.C. was pending. This affidavit is filed to rebut the
Petitioner's submissions contained in his affidavit dated
21.09.2025, and to establish that the Petitioner is
engaged in a calculated abuse of the judicial process,
thereby demonstrating a pattern of fraud on
differentcourts which disentitles him to any equitable or
discretionary relief from this Hon'ble Court as he has
approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands.
4. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner's assertion that
st nd
the filing of 1 Crl. M.C. No. 4989/2024 and 2 Crl. M.C.
6502/2025 for the very same relief is due to an honest
mistake or "lapse in enquiring properly following up and
ascertaining about the matter" is untenable and
disingenuous.
5. Such simultaneous pursuit of identical remedies before
the same judicial forum constitutes an aggravated form
of forum shopping, which is to be discouraged in the
interest of justice and upholding the Majesty of Court.
The Petitioner admits that the earlier Crl. M.C. (No.
4989 of 2024) was filed in June 2024, and the present
Crl. M.C. was filed in 2025, with full knowledge that

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
11
2026:KER:79734
"filing the same case again under the same provision with the
same prayer before the same High Court and Bench, with
different advocates but the same respondents, is illogical and
without any apparent benefits" .
6. But this deliberate duplication burdens this Hon'ble
Court and is a conscious strategy to harass the
Respondent herein through another Counsel, rather than
an "inadvertent" oversight by the Petitioner as an
experiment to get an interim order of stay, which couldn't
st
be obtained in the 1 Crl.M.C. The current affidavit,
rather than mitigating the misconduct, compounds the
Petitioner's dishonesty by offering a specious excuse for
a blatant violation of judicial procedure.
............................................................................................
11. This Hon'ble Court in F.A.O. No. 102 of 2024, explicitly
warned that when a person approaches the Court with
unclean hands, suppressing material facts, it is well
settled position of law that "he should summarily be
thrown out of the Court without granting any relief".
12. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994 SCC
(1) 1) , it was held that a litigant who plays fraud on the
court "has no right to approach the court and can be
summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation".
13. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v.State Bank of India ((2007) 8
SCC 449) , it was stressed that where there is suppression
of material facts, "the Court may refuse to entertain the

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
12
2026:KER:79734
petition and dismiss it without entering into the merits of
the matter".
14. In Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2025 KHC 6630) , the Court confirmed that
judicial orders procured by subverting the judicial
process through fraud "cannot be permitted to stand as
fraud unravels everything" and "when the court has been
the victim of fraud, it's hands cannot be tied down by
procedural laws in a manner to defeat the interests and
rights of other parties".
15. It is humbly submitted that in NidhiKaim and Another v.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2017 KHC 6121)
firmly states, "Even the trivialist act of wrong doing,
based on a singular act of fraud, cannot be
countenanced, in the name of justice".
16. The Petitioner, whose fraud has already been judicially
exposed in Ext.R2(a), falls squarely within the ambit of
the above strictures.
17. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has been
established as a dishonest litigant whose mala fide
intentions have been conclusively proven, the Petitioner
must face the consequence of his actions. This Crl.M.Cs
filed are mere extension of his attempt to obtain undue
advantage by playing fraud on Court and therefore must
be dismissed to maintain the sanctity and integrity of the
judicial process.

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
13
2026:KER:79734
In the light of the foregoing submissions and the judicial
record demonstrating the Petitioner's persistent mala fides
and fraudulent conduct, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to reject the vague explanation
tendered by the Petitioner for the duplicity of filings and
dismiss Crl.M.C. No. 6502 of 2025& in Crl.M.C. No. 4989 of
2024 in limine with exemplary, punitive and compensatory
costs, as the continued litigation by the Petitioner constitutes
an aggravated abuse of the process of this Hon'ble Court and
pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interests of justice.”
8. Coming to the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner to quash the FIR, according to him, none of the
offences alleged in the FIR, viz., offences under Sections 406 and
420 of the IPC, would sustain prima facie, since the petitioner got
title and custody of the elephant in dispute, in view of Annexure A3,
a document executed by the owner, Sri.Sadanandan, in his favour,
who had ownership over the elephant. It is also submitted that
Sadanandan got title over the elephant as per Annexure A4, a
nd
document executed by the 2 respondent in favour of Sadanandan.

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
14
2026:KER:79734
Thus, when Annexures A3 and A4 are read together, the allegations
in the FIR have no legs to stand.
9. Repelling this contention, the case advanced by the
nd
learned counsel for the 2 respondent is that the petitioner is at fault
mainly on two grounds. The first ground urged is that, before filing
this Crl.M.C., the same petitioner had filed another
Crl.M.C.No.4989 of 2024 before this Court seeking the same relief.
During the pendency of Crl.M.C.No.4989 of 2024, this Crl.M.C.
had been filed through another counsel. When this fact was brought
to the notice of the then learned Single Judge of this Court, both
Crl.M.Cs. were posted together. At this juncture, the earlier
Crl.M.C., viz., Crl.M.C.No.4989 of 2024, was withdrawn without
any liberty to proceed with the present Crl.M.C., and therefore the
present Crl.M.C. is not maintainable.
10. In this regard, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner lost sight of the filing of the earlier
Crl.M.C.No.4989 of 2024 and, accordingly, he had mistakenly filed

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
15
2026:KER:79734
the present Crl.M.C. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, if the petitioner had continued with the earlier Crl.M.C.
after not pressing or withdrawing the present one, this contention
should not have been raised.
11. Here, admittedly, the petitioner earlier filed
Crl.M.C.No.4989 of 2024 and, during the pendency of the same, the
present Crl.M.C. was also filed seeking the same relief. When the
pendency of the two Crl.M.Cs. was brought to his notice, he had
withdrew the earlier Crl.M.C.No.4989 of 2024. But no permission
was obtained to continue with the present crime. Thus, the situation
is that the grievance of the petitioner was not addressed in the earlier
Crl.M.C., which was withdrawn during the pendency of the present
Crl.M.C. No doubt, mere technicalities would not stand in the way
of denying a relief, if the petitioner is really entitled to the same, so
as to protect the rule of law in the interest of justice. In this
connection, it is relevant to note that, when a constitutional court
takes a view to non-suit a litigant on finding that he had filed

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
16
2026:KER:79734
frivolous litigation on earlier occasions, the same is akin, to putting
the said litigant to multiple hazards by initiating vexatious litigation
and thereby denying him a remedy to get out of vexatious litigations.
Therefore, in such cases, a practical approach in the paramount
interest of justice has to be considered. In such view of the matter,
nd
this contention raised by the 2 respondent is found against.
nd
12. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2
respondent that when the magistrate court issued an order to hand
nd
over the elephant to the 2 respondent, suppressing the same, the
petitioner filed a civil suit before the vacation court and obtained an
interim injunction, and subsequently this Court set aside the same
for suppression of material facts. It is also noticeable, as submitted
nd
by the learned counsel for the 2 respondent, that in a contempt
proceeding, the petitioner was imposed a fine by the Hon’ble Apex
Court also.
13. However, the question that arises for consideration is;
whether these are matters to non-suit the petitioner without

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
17
2026:KER:79734
addressing the case advanced by him, which was never decided by
this Court in any proceedings. Therefore, this Court is inclined to
nd
dispel this challenge raised by the 2 respondent.
14. Coming to the merit of the matter, on perusal of the
nd
complaint filed by the 2 respondent before the Karunagapally
Police, which led to the registration of the present FIR, it is
perceivable that, during February 2007, the elephant by name
‘Raman’ was entrusted to the petitioner by one Sadananthan, who
gave the elephant to the Mata Amritanandamayi Math. Further, it is
stated that ‘Raman’ was also entrusted to the accused, as he had
other elephants, during the period of musth. But, thereafter, when the
return of the elephant was asked for, he agreed to return the same
th
before 15 May 2023, but he failed to return the elephant. This is the
premise on which the FIR was registered, alleging commission of
offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. At the outset, while
going through the allegations, offences under section 420, cheating,
and Section 406, criminal breach of trust, are simultaneously alleged

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
18
2026:KER:79734
to be committed by the petitioner, through the said offences are
fundamentally contradictory and cannot co-exist or go together
based on the exact same set of allegations or a single transaction.
Ignoring the said fundamental principle, the police registered the
FIR alleging commission of the said offences together by the
petitioner herein. This legal position has been reiterated by the Apex
Court in a very recent decision in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and
Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2024) 10 SCC 690] .
nd
15. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the 2
respondent submitted that, in the instant case, the offence under
Section 420 of the IPC would not attract prima facie, but the offence
under Section 406 of the IPC would attract. In this connection, it is
relevant to refer to the ingredients of the offence under Section 406
of IPC. Section 406 of the IPC is extracted as hereunder:
“406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
19
2026:KER:79734
The ingredients is defined as follows:
(a) Essential Ingredients .—The section requires—
(i) Entrusting any person with property or with any
dominion over property;
(ii) The person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating
or converting to his own use that property; or
(b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or
wilfully suffering any other person so to do in
violation
(i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in
which such trust is to be discharged, or
(ii) of any legal contract made touching the
discharge of such trust.
……………. the ingredients of entrustment with property,
having domain over it, and the same having been
misappropriated or converted to his own use by the accused
person, are required to be proved. Where in prosecution for
the offence under sections 406 and 120-B IPC, the evidence
did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt, the
accused was acquitted.”
“The criminal breach of trust would, inter alia, mean
using or disposing of the property by a person who is
entrusted with or has otherwise dominion thereover. Such
an act must not only be done dishonestly but also in

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
20
2026:KER:79734
violation of any direction of law or any contract express or
implied relating to carrying out the trust. Sudhir Shantilal
Mahta v. C.B.I., (2009) 8 SCC 1 : (2009) 3 SCC (Crl) 646.
To constitute this offence, there must be dishonest
misappropriation by a person in whom, confidence is
placed as to the custody or management of the property in
respect of which the breach of trust is charged. The
ownership or beneficial interest in the property in respect of
which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been
committed, must be in some person, other than the accused
and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in
some way for his benefit. C M Narayan, AIR 1953 SC 478 :
1954 CrLJ 102. The offence of criminal breach of trust
closely resembles the offence of embezzlement under the
English law. Offences committed by trustees with regard to
trust property fall within the purview of this section.”
16. Here is a case wherein the specific case of the petitioner
is that, by executing Annexure A3 agreement, he got title and
custody of the elephant. Annexure A3 is the document alleged to
have been executed between K.V.Sadanandan and Krishnankutty
O.P. (the petitioner herein). In Annexure A3, it has been recited that
the elephant by name Madhu, originally in the ownership and

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
21
2026:KER:79734
custody of Sadanandan, was entrusted by him to the Mata
Amritanandamayi Math as a gift and, accordingly, the Math got
ownership over the same and renamed the elephant as ‘Raman’. It is
recited in Annexure A3 further that, since Raman had been in musth
periodically and the same found to have a direct impact on the safety
and security of the believers of Mata Amritanandamayi Math, it was
decided to gift the elephant back to Sadanandan. Accordingly, the
Mata Amritanandamayi Math, by executing a document (Annexure
A4), dated 18.02.2017, gifted the elephant back to Sadanandan.
Annexure A3 goes on to state further that thus Sadanandan, as the
owner of the elephant, gifted the elephant to Krishnankutty, who is
none other than the petitioner herein. Annexure A4 produced in this
case is document referred to in Annexure A3 dated 18.02.2017.
Annexure A4 would show that, in a stamp paper purchased in the
name of Mata Amritanandamayi Math, the Math gifted back the
elephant to Sadanandan for the very same reason stated in Annexure

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
22
2026:KER:79734
A3. One Swami representing Mata Amritanandamayi Math signed in
Annexure A4 with the seal of Math.
nd
17. According to the 2 respondent, they are disputing
Annexures A3 and A4. When one party asserts title over the elephant
based on two documents showing gifting of the same, the ownership
based on the said documents, if disputed, the same is a matter to be
decided by a competent civil court. In such a case, on no stretch of
imagination it could be said that an offence under Section 406 of the
IPC be found prima facie . The rationale is that the very fundamental
necessity to constitute an offence punishable under Section 406 of
the IPC is entrustment of property by a person having domain over
it. The word ‘domain’ literally means ‘a sphere of control’ or ‘an
authority’. Simply put, a person who has parted with his title and
possession of a property seized to be having any domain or authority
or control over the property. Here, the petitioner claims absolute title
nd
on the elephant in question, whereas the 2 respondent has no right
unless he could establish before a competent civil court that he did

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
23
2026:KER:79734
not execute Annexure A4, which led to the execution of Annexure
A3, the title document of the petitioner. Be it so, the FIR sought to
be quashed in this case is liable to be quashed for want of even
primary materials disclosing offences punishable under Section 406
of the IPC or Section 420 of the IPC.
In view of the above discussion, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The
FIR in Crime No.1000 of 2023 of Karunagapally Police Station and
all further proceedings thereafter stand quashed.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
GBG

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
24
2026:KER:79734
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 6502 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.S IN CRIME
NO.1000 OF 2023 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE
STATION
Annexure-2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME
NO.1000 OF 2023 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE
STATION
Annexure-3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED
28.02.2017 EXECUTED BY SADANANTHAN IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
Annexure-4 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED
18.02.20217 EXECUTED BY THE MATH IN
FAVOUR OF SADANANTHAN
Annexure-5 A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF
IMPLANTATION OF MICROCHIP BEARING M NO.
000674A7FE DATED 10.06.08 ISSUED BY THE
KERALA FORESTS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
Annexure-6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
OWNERSHIP DATED 30.07.2014
Annexure-7 THE DATE SHEET CONCERNING CAPTIVE
ELEPHANTS CENSUS IN KERALA DATED
29.11.2018
Annexure-8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
REPORT FILED BY THE STATE OF KERALA IN
WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.743 OF 2014 IN
WILDLIFE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION CENTRE
&ORS .VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Annexure-9 THE INSURANCE DETAILS OF THE ELEPHANT
WHILE IT WAS IN THE CUSTODY AND OWNERSHIP
OF THE PETITIONER
Annexure-10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2023
OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-I,
KARUNAGAPALLY IN CMP 2146 OF 2023
Annexure-11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE
COURT DATED 20.11.2023 IN CRL.M.C.NO.7600
OF 2023
Annexure-12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2023
OF COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE, KARUNAGAPALLY IN CMP NO. 2146
OF 2023

CNR : KLHC010603782025
Crl.M.C. No.6502 of 2025
25
2026:KER:79734
Annexure-13 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO. 4 OF
2023 ON THE FILES OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE,
IRINJALAKUDA
Annexure-14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
09.08.2024 IN I A 1/2024 AND IA 6/2024 IN
OS NO.04 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF THE
ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
Annexure-15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 22.01.2024
IN SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.51164/2023
Annexure-16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 26.11.2024
IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL) NO (S)
1159-1160/2024
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) True copy of the Judgment of F.A.O. No.
102 of 2024, dated 24.09.2025