Allowed

Betty Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Dec 2014Crl.MC/5675/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order where petitioners, accused in a case involving alleged cheating and forgery, sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The court found the dispute personal and amicably settled, allowing the petition and quashing the FIR and future proceedings to prevent harm.

What did the court decide?

The F.I.R and further proceedings in Crime No.2213 of 2014 against the petitioners will be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Betty Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5675 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2213/2014 OF ANGAMALI POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶8

BETTY JOSEPH AGED 45 YEARS D/O JOSEPH, OWNER, METRO SILKS AND SAREES SHOPE ANGAMALY, MUDAVAN VEEDU, KIDANGOOR KARA.

¶9

SATHYANANDAN AGED 63 YEARS

¶10

S/O KOCHURAMAN, PARTNER, SATHGAMAYA CHITS INDIA LTD. PUNNATHANAM JN., ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM.

¶11

SUVARNA SATHYANANDAN AGED 54 YEARS W/O K.SATHYANANDAN, PARTNER SATHGAMAYA CHITS INDIA LTD., PUNNATHANAM JN

¶12

ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM.

¶13

ABHISHEK AGED 33 YEARS

¶14

K. SATHYANANDAN, PARTNER, SATHGAMAYA CHITS INDIA LTD. PUNNATHANAM JN, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G

¶16

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶17

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶19

DEVIS, AGED 47 YEARS

¶20

S/O DEVASY, PAYYAMPALLI VEETIL, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN:683 101.

¶21

R2 BY ADV. SMT.ASWATHY BABU

¶22

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 5675 of 2014 ()

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2213/2014 OF THE ANGAMALY POLICE STATION.

¶28

ANNEXURE A2: AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

/TRUE COPY/

P.S TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

Crl.M.C No.5675 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 15^th December, 2014

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

The petitioners herein are the four accused in Crime No.2213 of 2014 of Angamaly Police Station registered under Sections 406, 420, 463, 471 and 506 (1) of Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Devis. The petitioners seek orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that they and the complainant have come to terms amicably out of court. The de facto complainant Devis is the 2^nd respondent herein. He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the whole dispute with the accused and he has no grievance or complaint. I am well satisfied that the dispute is really personal in nature concerning some loan transaction, and the blank documents furnished by the 2^nd respondent by way of security. Though offences under Sections 463 and 471 are alleged, definite materials are not there to attract those sections. I find that the loan transaction between the firm of the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent led to some

¶38

Crl.M.C No.5675 of 2014

¶39

¶40

dispute, and on some misapprehension the 2^nd respondent made a complaint. Anyway, the parties have come to terms amicably out of court, and the complainant has no grievance or complaint now. I find that continuance of further proceeding in the crime will do harm and hardship to both the parties, and it will not serve any purpose also.

¶41

The trend of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that even at crime stage the High Court can quash prosecution, if continuance of prosecution will be an abuse of process of law, or when the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably.

¶42

In the result, this petition is allowed. The F.I.R and further proceedings in Crime No.2213 of 2014 of Angamaly Police Station as against the petitioners herein will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

/True copy/

P.S to Judge

Betty Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Betty Joseph 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

Joy Puthukulangara Vs State of Kerala

Rajagopala Pillai Vs Ayyappan Pillai

Ramachandran Vs the State of Kerala

A.T.Nazar Vs State of Kerala

Karimala Granites & Aggregates Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs the Sub Inspector of Police