Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Man Accused Of Impersonating Police Officer To Enter Cricketer S Sreesanth's Residence

The Kerala High Court has quashed proceedings against the individual accused of impersonating a police officer to enter the residence of cricketer S Sreesanth.

A single bench consisting of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas heard the plea.

The court reasoned that mere impersonation does not qualify for an offence under Section 419 for cheating by personation, adding that the offence is only attracted when, along with the impersonation, the accused inflicts damage or harm to body, mind, reputation, or property.

“The offence of cheating by impersonation occurs only when, due to the impersonation, some damage or harm to body, mind, reputation, or property takes place or is likely to take place. In other words, the accused must have, by the act of impersonation, obtained some property or induced the aggrieved to do or omit to do something that would have caused damage or harm to his mind, body, reputation, or property” stated the court.

According to the prosecution, the accused entered the house of the cricketer S. Sreesanth after impersonating a police officer at the security gate and told his parents that he was a staff of the Board of Control for Cricket in India and thereby cheated the de facto complainant and committed the offence under section 419 IPC.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 419, the petitioner ought to have cheated the de facto complainant and in the absence of any allegation to that effect, the offence cannot be attracted at all.

Section 416 IPC states that “A person is said to 'cheat by personation' if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is".

“In the absence of any whisper of any such harm having been caused or to have likely been caused to the security guard for having been induced by the alleged impersonation of the petitioner, the accused cannot be said to have committed cheating. If a person is not cheated, then the offence under section 419 cannot be attracted” concluded Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Dheeraj Krishnan Perot, Vineetha AA, Sreerag S, Arya Devasia, Megha and Sreepriya KU

Advocate for Respondent: Advocate Noushad KA, Public Prosecutor

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 225

Case Title: Nilesh Ramachandra Japthap v. State of Kerala and ors.

Case Number: Crl MC No. 2110 of 2024

Click here to read/download the order