The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the accused in a cheating case. The court noted that the dispute had been amicably resolved and held that quashing the proceedings was in the interest of justice to promote peace.
The pending criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 3918 of 2014 and the final report against the petitioner were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 2196 of 2015 ()
AGAINST CC 3918/2014 of J.F.C.M, KODUNGALLUR CRIME NO. 2047/2014 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION , TRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ALI MUHAMMED MANDAYIPURATH HOUSE, ERIYAD, KODUNGALLUR, TRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SHAHUL HAMEED MOOPPAN SRI.K.M.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682 031.
2. SIDHIQ
R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1312-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 2196 of 2015 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
VPS PS TO JUDGE
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2196 of 2015
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2016
O R D E R
Crl.M.C.2196/2015 2
Section 420 of the IPC, which is sought to be quashed in this petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony.
Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows :
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
Crl.M.C.2196/2015
3
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-I final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner in C.C. No.3918 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodungallur are quashed.
Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE
vps
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC should be quashed in view of the amicable resolution between the parties.
Whether the High Court is justified in invoking its inherent powers to quash the pending criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶41
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ali Muhammed Mandayipurath
State of Kerala
Sidhique Kochekkaran
Raja Vijayaraghavan.V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
