Allowed

Venugopal and Others v. E.K.Padmini and Others

Kerala HC19 Jun 2009Crl.MC/71/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged the FIR and subsequent charge sheet alleging offences related to property and betrayal of trust (IPC sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 468, 471). The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings citing a full settlement, payment of dues with interest, and withdrawal of arbitration cases, noting that a trial would serve no fruitful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Crl.M.C.No.807/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam, is quashed against the petitioners.

Venugopal and Others Vs E.K.Padmini and Others — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 71 of 2009

¶6

----------------------C.C.NO.807/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-III, KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1, 4,6,7,8,11 & 12:

¶8

---------------

¶9

1. VENUGOPAL , KUNNUPURAHU, THAZHATHANGADI.

¶10

2. LALITHA BAI, POOVELIL, KARAPPUZHA.

¶11

3. MOHANAN K.M., KARIYIL , VELLUR, KOTTYAM.

¶12

4. K.K. SIVAN, KUNNUMPURATHU, THAZHATHANGADI,.

¶13

5. ULLAS KUMAR P.R., PULIKUTHIPARAMBIL, THAZHATHANGADI.

¶14

6. RAMACHANDRA NAYIK, PADIPPURAMADAM, THAZHATHANGADI.

¶15

7. ABRAHAM JACOB, ONATTU, THAZHATHANGADI.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.KISHOR B.

¶17

RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

---------------

¶19

1. E.K. PADMINI, SECRETARY REPRESENTING, KARAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO. 74, RESIDING AT VADAKKE PARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM DESOM, NATTAKOM VILLAGE.

¶20

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION.

¶21

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶22

R1 BY ADVOCAE SMT.LIJI VADAKKEDAN R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI.

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

dkr

¶25

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶26

================== Crl.M.C. No. 71 of 2009-B

¶27

==================

¶28

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2009.

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Petitioners are accused 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 in C.C.No.807/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam. The prosecution case is that petitioners committed offences under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The police registered the case based on the complaint from the first respondent-Society, the defacto complainant. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings, contending that the entire amount due to first respondentSociety was paid by the petitioners and there was a settlement of all the disputes with first respondent-Society and therefore the case is to be quashed.

¶31

Originally, the petitioner had only sought for a direction to quash Annexure A FIR or in the alternative seek permission to the Magistrate to compound the offence

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.71/2009-B

¶33

-2-

¶34

under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Even when the petition was filed, final report in the case was filed which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate. It is for that reason petitioners later got the petition amended seeking a relief to quash the final report as well as the case pending before the Magistrate. As the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code are not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, permission cannot be granted to compound the offences. As the case of the petitioners was that the entire amount due to the first respondent-Society was paid and there was a settlement, as per order dated 12-1-2009, petitioners were directed to take steps to see that a joint statement is filed. First respondent appeared through the Secretary and filed an affidavit stating that subsequent to the filing of the charge sheet, the entire amount due from the accused with interest at 12% was received by the Society and as a result, the arbitration cases pending

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.71/2009-B

¶36

-3-

¶37

against the petitioners were withdrawn by orders No.109/2008 dated 13-3-2008 and 15-5-2008 by the Assistant Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Kottayam and as the entire amount due to the Society has already been realised, the Director Board of the Society authorised the Secretary to take appropriate steps to settle the case and therefore first respondent has no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶38

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶39

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was a settlement of the disputes of the petitioners with the first respondent-Society as stated by the petitioners and first respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for first respondent submitted that as the entire amount due from the petitioners have been received by the Society with interest, the Board of Directors of the first respondent has decided to withdraw the arbitration cases pending against

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.71/2009-B

¶41

-4-

¶42

the petitioners and also decided not to prosecute petitioners further and in such circumstances the case could be quashed.

¶43

In view of the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the affidavit of the Secretary of first respondent-Society, it is clear that even if an ordeal of a trial is undergone as against the petitioners, there is no chance for a successful prosecution. In such circumstances, no fruitful purpose will be gained by proceeding with the trial, except waste of valuable time of the court.

¶44

Petition is allowed. In the interest of justice, C.C.No.807/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam, as against the petitioners, is quashed.

¶45

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶46

dkr

Venugopal and Others v. E.K.Padmini and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venugopal and Others v. E.K.Padmini and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geo Paul Vs State of Kerala

G.Gigi Vs State of Kerala

N.Ramankutty Nair Vs E.S.I. Corporation

Jose George Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Raghavan Achari Vs Puthiyakandam Gunavathi Action Committee

Kannan Vs the State of Kerala