Allowed

Sethu Lekshmi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2015Crl.MC/3655/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition to quash a criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 177 and 420 of the IPC. The debt dispute underlying the prosecution was amicably settled through mediation before the High Court, with the accused fulfilling the liability. The court held that continuance of prosecution served no purpose and quashed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution against the petitioner in C.C. No. 34/2013 shall stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sethu Lekshmi Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3655 of 2015 ()

¶6

IN C.C 34/2013 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT

¶7

II, HARIPAD

¶8

CRIME NO. 774/2012 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶10

MRS.SETHU LEKSHMI, AGED 47 YEARS, G.S.BHAVANAM, THULAPARAMBU NADVATHUM MURI, MANNARASALA P.O, HARIPAD.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.BIMAL K.NATH

¶12

SRI.K.T.THOMAS (KANNAMPALLIL)

¶13

SRI.D.SREENATH

¶14

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

2. MS.GEETHA.M, MANAGER,

¶17

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HARIPAD.

¶18

*ADDL R3

¶19

THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HARIPAD BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, HARIPAD.

¶20

ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.7.2015 IN CRL.M.A NO.6511/2015.

¶21

ADDL.3 BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR.) ADDL.3 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER.C.V., SC, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES

¶22

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 3655 of 2015

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶27

ANNEXURE-A1: COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,HARIPAD ON 27/07/2012

¶28

ANNEXURE-A2: COPY OF THE FIR NO.774/2012 DATED 01/08/2012 REGISTERED BY HARIPAD POLICE STATION

¶29

ANNEXURE-A3: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NUMBER 774/2012 DATED 10/01/2013

¶30

ANNEXURE-A4: COPY OF THE FIR NO:853/2011 DATED 23/12/2011 REGISTERED BY KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION

¶31

ANNEXURE-A5: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION,BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I,HARIPAD IN CRIME NO:853/2011 DATED 15/02/2014.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.3655 of 2015 ---------------------------------------

¶38

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2015

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C. No.34/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Haripad, involving the offences under Sections 177 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint in this case was made by the 2^nd respondent, in connection with a loan transaction. When the petitioner herein made default, the bank came with the complaint alleging cheating. The prosecution is sought to be quashed on the ground that the liability, if at all there is, is civil in nature, and that there is no element of cheating in the complaint, or the prosecution records. Pending the proceedings the matter was referred to mediation. The parties came to terms amicably before the mediator at the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court of Kerala, and executed a memorandum of agreement settling the whole dispute. The memorandum of agreement signed by the parties shows that the respondents have received the amount due from the petitioner in full and final settlement of the claim, and in such a situation, the respondents do not want to prosecute the matter further.

¶41

¶42

Crl.M.C No.3655 of 2015

¶43

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash the prosecution in pending proceedings, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, and continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose in such a circumstance of amicable settlement. The respondents' only concern is the money due from the petitioner, and they initiated prosecution with the object of releasing the money. The liability, now stands discharged, and the respondents have no complaint or grievance now. In such a situation, I find that it would appropriate to quash the prosecution.

¶44

In the result, this petition is allowed. The memorandum of agreement signed by the parties before the Mediation Centre is accepted. Accordingly, the prosecution against the petitioner in C.C No.34/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court II, Haridpad will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶45

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

¶46

//True Copy//

¶47

Sethu Lekshmi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sethu Lekshmi 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

P.A Roshan Muhammed Afsal Vs State of Kerala

Sasankan Vs State of Kerala

Rajan P.R. Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs Cbi, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor

Jolly Vs State of Kerala

V.v.Lakshmanan Vs Geetha