Allowed

C.v.Rappai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2016Crl.MC/1361/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The petitioners, accused in cases of cheating and forgery, obtained an out-of-court settlement with the complainant. The Court held the offence to be personal in nature, trivialized the prosecution's purpose, and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 861 of 2012 were quashed.

C.v.Rappai Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/13TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1361 of 2014 ()

¶6

CC. NO.861/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,THRISSUR. CRIME NO. 34/2012 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

¶8

1. C.V. RAPPAI,

¶9

S/O. VAREETH, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLY VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2. MERCY @ MARYKUTTY, W/O.C.V. RAPPAI, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLY VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

3. ELSY, W/O. LATE GEORGE, THATTIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN.

¶13

RESPONDENTS-(STATE OF KERALA AND COMPLAINANT):

¶14

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

¶15

2. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, MANNUTHY BRANCH, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI. R2 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE, SC.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 1361 of 2014

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶22

ANNEXURE I	COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE II	COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 06/03/2012.
ANNEXURE III	COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE MANAGER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE JFCM-3.
ANNEXURE IV	COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION DATED 31/05/2012.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶28

- - - - Crl.M.C. No. 1361 of 2014

¶29

- - - - Dated 4^th August, 2016

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

1.The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C.No.861 of 2012 of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class- III, Thrissur. They are charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 421, 463, 464 and 468 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶33

2.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand (2014 (9) SCC 653 ) with a prayer to quash the above proceeding.

¶34

Crl.M.C. No.1361 of 2014 -2-

¶35

3.The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked de hors section 320 of the Code for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 of the Code be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶36

4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The 2^nd respondent has filed Annexure III statement and also a counter affidavit stating that there is no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶37

5.The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners together had subscribed certain chitties run by the 2^nd respondent and availed loans. Later, they defaulted in paying the

¶38

Crl.M.C. No.1361 of 2014 -3-

¶39

instalments which became due. When proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, it was realised that the properties mortgaged had been alienated in the name of the 3^rd petitioner herein. On the strength of the above allegations, statement was given and a crime was registered.

¶40

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶41

7.The learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent would submit that the said respondent has received the entire amounts due from the petitioners in respect of the chitty transaction and that the said respondent has no objection in terminating the proceedings. An affidavit is also filed to this effect before the court.

¶42

8.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that no other cases are reported against the petitioners.

¶43

Crl.M.C. No.1361 of 2014 -4-

¶44

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

¶45

10.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 parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶46

11.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Gian Singh ( Supra ) and the other cases

¶47

Crl.M.C. No.1361 of 2014

¶48

-5-

¶49

referred to above.

¶50

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 C.C.No.861 of 2012 of the Judicial Magistrate of

¶51

1^st Class-III, Thrissur are quashed.

¶52

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶53

kp/-5.8.16

C.v.Rappai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.v.Rappai 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

M. Aravindakshan Nair Vs T.K. Radhakrishanan Nair

Ajeer Vs M.K.Sayed

Anil Vs State of Kerala

Jamsheer Vs State of Kerala

Nihal Vs State of Kerala

Rahim Vs State of Kerala