Allowed

P.v.Saru and Another v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC17 Jun 2011Crl.MC/1188/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of proceedings for cheating and criminal conspiracy after the private complainant settled the dispute and filed an affidavit stating no further grievance.

What did the court decide?

Crl.MC. No. 1188 of 2011 allowed. Final report in Crime No. 107 of 2010 and all proceedings if any initiated against petitioners were quashed.

P.v.Saru 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 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1188 of 2011()

¶6

CRIME NO. 107/2010 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 :

¶8

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

¶9

1. P.V.SARU, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.LATE IBRAHIM, PATTILLATH HOUSE, CHOKKIKANDAM, PADANE P.O., PADANE VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

2. P.V.ABDULKHADER, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.LATE IBRAHIM, PATTILLATH HOUSE, CHOKKIKANDAM, PADANE P.O., PADANE VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI

¶12

RESPONDENTS / STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

2. TAJUDDIN P.P., S/O.ATTAKKOYA, FATHIMA MANZIL, NEAR NEW MASJID, THEKKEPPURAM, PADNE P.O.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. MANU R2 BY ADV. SMT. HEMALATHA

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

...2/-

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 1188 of 2011()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S

¶23

ANNEXURE - I : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F..I.R. IN CRIME 107OF 2010 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.

¶24

ANNEXURE - II : AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.1188 of 2011

¶31

Dated this 17^th day of June, 2011

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.107 of 2010 of Chandera Police Station for offence punishable under Sec.420 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Second respondent filed a private complaint before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg alleging that petitioners cheated him by collecting `.2,50,000/- from him on the promise of arranging visa but failed to do so. That complaint was forwarded to the Chandera police for investigation. Police registered a case as above stated. Petitioners say that they have settled the matter with the second respondent and request to quash proceeding against them. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that after investigation the police has submitted final report before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg on 30.12.2010. Learned counsel for second respondent has submitted that second respondent has already given a statement to the police reporting that he has no further grievance in the matter since the

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.1188 of 2011

¶36

-: 2 :-

¶37

matter is settled. Learned counsel on both sides confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for second respondent confirmed authenticity and genuineness of Annexure-II, affidavit of the second respondent.

¶38

So far as Crime No.107 of 2010 is concerned, only affected party is the second respondent and he has settled the case with petitioner. In view of that settlement, I do not consider it necessary that the proceeding should continue.

¶39

Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.107 of 2010 of Chandera Police Station and all proceeding if any initiated against petitioners by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg based on that final report are quashed.

¶40

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶41

Sbna/-

P.v.Saru and Another v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Saru 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

Santhosh Vs Rajesh Myladoor

Fr.Alias Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Joseph @ Binoy Vs Sub Inspector of Police,Vechoochira

Chandrababu Vs Peethambaran

M/S.Panacea Biotec Limited Vs State of Keralae

Lilly Vs T.J.Tomy