Allowed

V.Gopi and Another v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC3 Jun 2011Crl.MC/1155/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.M.C. No.1155 of 2011 where petitioners, accused in a cheating case, sought quashing of proceedings after settling the dispute before an Adalath. The court held that since the Adalath awarded settlement and the second respondent had no objection to quashing, the criminal proceedings would not continue.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed; Annexure-A2, FIR in Crime No.744 of 2007 and all proceedings taken pursuant to it against petitioners are quashed.

V.Gopi and Another Vs State of Kerala and Another — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1155 of 2011()

¶6

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

¶7

CRIME NO.744/2007 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION.

¶8

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2

¶9

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

¶10

1. V.GOPI,S/O.VAMANA PAI,GOPI NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD,KOTTAYAM.

¶11

2. K.SREEKANTH,S/O.V.KUMAR,KUMAR NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD,KOTTAYAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

2. V.GOKULAN,S/O.VAMANA PAI,GOKUL NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD,KOTTAYAM.

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MOHAMED ANZAR

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI MATHEW

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

tss

¶21

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶22

==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1155 of 2011

¶23

==================================== Dated this the 03^rd day of June, 2011

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.744 of 2007 of Kottayam West Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 416, 417, 463, 464, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a complaint preferred by the second respondent who is the brother of first petitioner and uncle of second petitioner. According to the second respondent, property belonged to first petitioner and himself jointly. Petitioners claiming to be owners of the property allowed a mobile tower to be erected in the building in co-ownership and a Power of Attorney of the second respondent was fabricated to facilitate electric connection. Based on the information police registered Annexure-A2, FIR. Petitioners approached this Court with Crl. M.C. Nos.712 and 918 of 2010 and those cases were referred to the Adalath of this Court for consideration. It is submitted that in the Adalath dispute between parties was settled and the Adalath passed Annexure-3, award. It is submitted that police has not so far filed final report and hence petitioners could not move the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders

¶26

CRL.M.C. No.1155 of 2011

¶27

-: 2 :-

¶28

pursuant to Annexure-3, award. Hence this petition to quash proceeding against petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for petitioners and second respondent confirmed the settlement. It is seen from Annexure-3, award that the Adalath had specifically stated that parties and counsel were present at the time of mediation, parties have stated that all matters in dispute between them relating to the property are settled and that second respondent does not want to proceed with the criminal complaint against petitioners. The Adalath in the circumstances recorded that the Crl. M.Cs are settled outside court and stand closed. It was also directed that second respondent is permitted to produce copy of the award before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kottayam (where Annexue-A2, FIR had been submitted) for passing appropriate orders.

¶29

As learned counsel submitted, final report has not so far been submitted. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in the circumstances petitioners and second respondent could not move learned Magistrate to quash the proceedings. Second respondent has no objection in quashing proceedings against

¶30

CRL.M.C. No.1155 of 2011

¶31

-: 3 :-

¶32

petitioners. In the circumstances it is not necessary to continue the proceeding in Crime No.744 of 2007.

¶33

Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-A2, FIR in Crime No.744 of 2007 of Kottayam West Police Station and all proceeding taken pursuant to it against petitioners are quashed.

¶34

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶35

vsv

V.Gopi and Another v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Gopi and Another v. State of Kerala and Another

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

Prasannan Vs State of Kerala

Fr.John Puthuran Vs Mr.K.v.Eliyas and Another

Asharaf & Another Vs the State of Kerala & Anr.

M.a.Mushthaf Ahammed Vs State of Kerala

Vijayalakshmi Vs State of Kerala

Sindhu Vs State of Kerala