Allowed

Minu Antony v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jul 2016Crl.MC/1125/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings started under Section 406/420 IPC involving fraud and illegal money lending allegations. The matter was decided amicably through mediation, and the court held that continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process as the offence was personal and the possibility of conviction was remote.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners as accused in C.C.No.451 of 2015 are quashed.

Minu Antony Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2016/23RD ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1125 of 2016

¶6

CC 451/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- IX, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 225/2015 OF CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1- 2:

¶8

1. MINU ANTONY, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE ANTONY, KALATHIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 027.

¶9

2. THANKAMMA ANTONY, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.LATE ANTONY, KALATHIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 027.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.SEVI VARGHESE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 027.

¶14

3. RATHEESH, S/O.ANTONY, SHEVELI HOUSE (CHEVELIL), SOUTH CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 027.

¶15

R1 & 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R3 BY ADV. RAJESH ANTONY

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 1125 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE

¶21

ANNEXURE-A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.225/2015 OF CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION DATED 21/3/2015. ANNEXURE-A2. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.225/2015 OF CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION DATED 21/3/2015. ANNEXURE-A3. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO.093642 DATED 2/3/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A4. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 17/3/2015 ANNEXURE-A5. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.161/2015 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE JFCMC(NI COURT), MATTANCHERRY DATED 24/4/2015 (WITHOUT DOCUMENTS) ANNEXURE-A6. TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AWARD IN CC NO.161/2015 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE JFCMC (NI COURT), MATTANCHERRY DATED 12/8/2015.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE -----------------------

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶28

Crl.M.C. No. 1125 of 2016

¶29

Dated this the 14^th day of July, 2016

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

~~~~~~~~

¶32

1.The accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.451 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-IX, Ernakulam has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the matter has been resolved amicably between the parties.

¶33

2.It appears that the aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.225 of 2015 of the Cheranalloor Police Station registered at the instance of the 3^rd respondent herein alleging offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC and under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Charging of Exhorbitant Interest Act, 2012.

¶34

Crl.M.C. No. 1125 of 2016 -2-

¶35

3.It is apparent from the records that as against the 3^rd respondent, a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was initiated by the 1^st petitioner and the same was pending as C.C.No.161 of 2015 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mattancherry.

¶36

4.These matters were referred for mediation and it was finally settled at the Kochi Mediation Sub Centre. Annexure-A6 is the memorandum of agreement detailing the terms of settlement. It is submitted at the Bar that the terms were complied with and the continuation of the prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of process.

¶37

5.Heard the rival submissions.

¶38

6.Relying on the judgment rendered by the Three – Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) it is prayed that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be

¶39

Crl.M.C. No. 1125 of 2016 -3-

¶40

invoked to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶41

7.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents.

¶42

8.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record.

¶43

9.It appears to me that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the

¶44

Crl.M.C. No. 1125 of 2016 -4-

¶45

parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶46

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.451 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-IX, Ernakulam are quashed.

¶47

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶48

ps/15.7.2016

Minu Antony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minu Antony 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Majid Vs Sidhique

Lee Rafel Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Bhuvanachandran Vs State of Kerala

M/S Bajaj Finance Ltd. (Bajaj Finserv) Vs the Sub Inspector of Police.

Dr. Rajan Thomas Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Adimali

Aneesh M.A. Vs State of Kerala