Allowed

Ignatius Kulirani v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2014Crl.MC/5559/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case involving an FIR for cheating, the Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings. The petitioner and the complainant reached an amicable settlement via mediation at the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The Court found the dispute personal in nature and resolved, deeming the prosecution harmful and a waste of judicial time.

What did the court decide?

The FIR and further proceedings in Crime No. 1320/2013 were quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Ignatius Kulirani Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5559 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO. 1320/2013 OF KARUNAAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

IGNATIUS KULIRANI, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH K.K, AREA MANAGER, M/S. KARVY STOCK BROKING LTD, CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD, 1ST CROSS, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN KERALA-36

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR SRI.ANUMOD B.NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

2. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.KESAVAKURUP, VILAYIL VEEDU, ANAYADI P.O, SOORANADU, KOLLAM - 690 522.

¶14

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KJARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION,

¶15

KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM - 690 518

¶16

4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM - 690 518.

¶17

R1, R3 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 5559 of 2014

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE CLIENT REGISTRATION FORM

¶23

ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATD 4-8-2011

¶24

ANNEXURE 3: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 12-08-2011

¶25

ANNEXURE 4:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3-09-2011

¶26

ANNEXURE 5: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 13-09-2011

¶27

ANNEXURE 6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 9-12-2011

¶28

ANNEXURE 7: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 25-2-2013

¶29

ANNEXURE 8: COPY OF THE F.I.R REGISTERED BY THE KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE AS CRIME NO 1320/2013.

¶30

ANNEXURE 9: ORIGINAL OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BFORE THE SI OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶31

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J.

--------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.5559 of 2014 ---------------------------------------

¶38

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2014

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.1320/2013 of the Karunagappally Police Station, registered under Sections 409, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, on the complaint of one Radhakrishna Pillai. The petitioner now seeks orders quashing the prosecution on the ground that he and the defacto complainant have come to terms amicably out of court. Pending the proceeding the matter was referred for conciliation in mediation to the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to the High Court of Kerala. In the process of mediation the parties came to a proper settlement, and also executed a memorandum of mediation agreement before the mediator. The original of the said agreement is before this Court. This agreement shows that the parties have really settled the whole dispute and the complainant has received whatever amount due from the petitioner. The defacto complainant Radhakrishna Pillai is present in court in person. He submits that the whole dispute stands resolved

¶41

Crl.M.C No.5559 of 2014 2

¶42

forever and that he has received the entire amount from the petitioner. I find that the alleged transaction is in fact a transaction concerning some share trading, and the dispute is really personal in nature. Anyway, the whole dispute now stands resolved forever. In such a situation continuance of prosecution against the petitioner herein will cause harm and hardship to both sides, and it will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court.

¶43

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The FIR and the further proceeding in Crime No.1320/2013 of the Karunagappally Police Station will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶44

P.UBAID JUDGE

¶45

Ignatius Kulirani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ignatius Kulirani v. State of Kerala

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

K.M.Nasarudheen Vs State of Kerala

Ameer Abdul Azeez Vs Sub Inspector of Police Kayamkulam

David Laly Vs State of Kerala

Yasin Vs State of Kerala

Sivaji Vs State of Kerala

Aalu Vs State of Kerala