The High Court of Kerala dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings for cheque dishonour. The court held that pending civil appeal implies no finality, and questions of dispute must be resolved in the criminal trial itself rather than quashing the case.
Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 778 of 2009() -----------------------CC.310/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH PARAVUR
PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:
-------------------------------------------
SUBHA,D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, THANNIPPILLIL VEEDU, MALIANKARA, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O.
BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. K.DINESH KUMAR, NEERANJANAM WEST, PERUVANNAM WEST, KIHAKKEPRAM, NORTH PARAVOOR.
2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MR.M.REVIKRISHNAN. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
CRL.M.C.NO.778 OF 2009
Dated 2nd June 2009
O R D E R
Petitioner is the accused in C.C.310/2004
pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravoor taken cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, on the complaint filed by first respondent. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash all further proceedings in C.C.310/2004 contending that first respondent instituted O.S.54/2006 in respect of the very same claim and the civil court under Annexure-1 judgment dismissed the suit finding that the agreement for sale set up in
the case is not believable and therefore the criminal case is to be quashed.
2
CRMC 778/09
against Annexure-1 judgment as R.F.A.485/2007 and when Annexure-1 judgment has not become final, based on the criminal case cannot be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner relying on the decision in
Madhavan Nambiar v. Bharathan (1995 (1) KLT 591)
argued that in such circumstances, criminal case is to
be stayed till final disposal of the civil case.
a matter to be decided on the evidence in that case. If the case of the petitioner is that because of Annexure-1 judgment, case of first respondent is to be disbelieved, petitioner is at liberty to put forth
3
CRMC 778/09
the argument in the criminal case. If case of the petitioner is that criminal case is to be stayed in view of the first appeal pending against Annexure-1 judgment, it is for the petitioner to seek an order of stay before the learned Magistrate. In any case the petition cannot be closed as sought for.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings for cheque dishonour when a civil appeal is pending against the judgment dismissing the underlying suit.
Whether the pendency of a first appeal against the civil judgment disbelieving an agreement is a ground to stay the criminal case under Section 138 NI Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madhavan Nambiar v. BharathanReferred¶26
Madhavan Nambiar v. Bharathan (1995 (1) KLT 591)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Subha
K.Dinesh Kumar
State of Kerala
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
