Quashed

Parachali Nareekutty Susheela v. Parathi Kunhikrishnan

Kerala HC9 Nov 2011Crl.MC/891/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under a private complaint alleging breach of trust and cheating related to a land sale, holding that since the related civil suit was compromised, continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process. (44 words)

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings in CC.1102/08 on the file of JFCM-1, Hosdurg were quashed.

Parachali Nareekutty Susheela Vs Parathi Kunhikrishnan — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 891 of 2011()

¶6

-----------------------CC.1102/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG ....................

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

PARACHALI NAREEKUTTY SUSHEELA ALIAS P.N.SUSHEELA, AGED 77 YEARS, D/O.NARAYANI AMMA, RESIDING AT VENGARA, MADAI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. VENGARA-KANNUR-POST.

¶10

CHANDRAMBETH NAREEKUTTY SUMEERA, AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.PARACHALI NAREEKUTTY SUSHEELA ALIAS P.N.SUSHEELA.

¶11

PARATHI RAHUL, AGED 30 YEARS.

¶12

PARATHI MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS.

¶13

PARATHI MRUDULA, AGED 35 YEARS (3 TO 5 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE KUNHIKANNAN MASTER AND SUMEERA, RESIDING AT SHRI RAMA KRIPA, MADAI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, VENGARA-POST, 670 305.

¶14

BY ADVS . SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶15

SRI.P.S.BINU SRI.K.M.NASAR

¶16

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS

¶17

¶18

PARATHI KUNHIKRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE I.KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT "SREEGEHAM", VENGARA MADAI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 673 003. POST-VENGARA-KANNUR.

¶19

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

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 891 of 2011

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶24

A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT

¶25

A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT

¶26

A3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION TO RECEIVE THE DOCUMENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

smvd

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,J.

¶32

Crl.M.C. No. 891 of 2011

¶33

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2011.

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

Petitioners are the accused in CC.1102/2008 on the file of JFCM – 1, Hosdurg. A private complaint was filed against them alleging commission of offence under Sec.143, 120(b), 420 r/w 149 IPC. The gist of the allegation is that the petitioners were the partners of the firm of which the complainant (R1) also was a partner. They executed a sale deed in respect of 3.50acres of land in favour of a trust as per a registered document No.3481/2003 of SRO, Thrikkarippur. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect if the very same property and raising the very same allegation a suit was filed by the complainant/R1 herein against the petitioners before the Sub Court, Hosdurg as OS No.20/2008 wherein the allegation was that the property was sold by the partners without any legal necessity. That suit was subsequently compramised. Annexure – 3 is the certified copy of the

¶36

Crl.M.C. No. 891 of 2011 2

¶37

compromise petition, signed by the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant also. It was stated therein that the sale deed was executed out of legal necessity for the welfare of the firm of which the petitioners and the complainant were partners.

¶38

Learned counsel submits that even otherwise the allegation does not disclose the commission of offence as the dispute is only civil in nature. Since the parties have already compromised the suit itself, I find that further proceedings in CC.1102/08 would be an abuse of process of court. In order to secure ends of justice, further proceedings in CC.1102/08 on the file of JFCM-1, Hosdurg is quashed.

¶39

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶40

smvd

Parachali Nareekutty Susheela v. Parathi Kunhikrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parachali Nareekutty Susheela v. Parathi Kunhikrishnan

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

S.N.Raghuchandran Nair Vs State & Another

Rajendran @ Durrai Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh P. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Kannan and 11 Others Vs Krishna Warrier and Others

Shamsudeen Vs Noorjahan and Another

Varghese Vs State of Kerala