Allowed

Usha Ganesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 May 2016Crl.MC/2267/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court of Kerala exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. The allegations arose from a private dispute over a bank withdrawal from a joint account, which was later settled by the 2nd respondent. The court observed that the offences were personal in nature and did not affect public peace

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C.No.3836 of 2013 against the petitioner are quashed.

Usha Ganesh Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2016/13TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2267 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 3836/2013 of J.M.F.C., KODUNGALLUR CRIME NO. 492/2012 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACUSED:

¶8

USHA GANESH CHERIYATTU HOUSE, NATIKA DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, THRIPRAYAR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SMT.SEEMA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

2. BAI ANTONY

¶13

AGD 42 YEARS, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AKG COLONY, NATTIKA DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, THRIPRAYAR-680567.

¶14

R2,RADDL.3 BY ADV. SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. N. SURESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 2267 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.492/2012 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION DATED 4.8.2011. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.492/2012 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION DATED 26.6.2013. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION DATED 30.3.2015. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.3.2016. ANNEXURE A5: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE CHAIR PERSON OF NATTIKA KUDUMBASREE UNIT, NATTIKA.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------NIL

// True copy //

PA to Judge

das

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. J

¶24

- - - - Crl.M.C. 2267 of 2016

¶25

- - - - Dated 3^rd May, 2016

¶26

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This petition is filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶29

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.3836 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodungalloor. The said case arose out of crime No.492 of 2012 of the Valappad police station, registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under S. 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution allegation was that the petitioner had withdrawn a sum of Rs.14,500/- from the

¶31

Crl.M.C.2267 of 2016

¶32

¶33

joint account maintained by the Nattika Kudumbasree Unit at the State Bank of Travancore, Thriprayar Branch. According to the learned counsel it was later revealed that it was based on a misunderstanding that the complaint was lodged.

¶34

The 2^nd respondent/ de facto complainant has appeared through counsel and it is submitted that the matter has been settled. She has also filed an affidavit asserting that the entire disputes between herself and the petitioner has been settled and that she has no subsisting grievance. Later, when doubt arose as to the competency of the de facto complainant to settle the matter, this Court had directed the actual aggrieved to file an affidavit. On the basis of the aforesaid direction, Annexure A5 affidavit has been preferred by the Chairperson of the Nattika Kudumbasree Unit asserting that the matter has been settled and that the Unit has not suffered any loss in the said transaction.

¶35

Crl.M.C.2267 of 2016

¶36

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶38

I am convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility. It has been held by the Apex Court, that the High Court, while exercising powers under S. 482 of the Code will be justified in quashing cases involving even non-compoundable offences if the disputes are really private in nature and no public interests are involved, provided that the offenses are not of the gravely objectionable nature. I have anxiously gone through the relevant records and also the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant. I am convinced that the extraordinary powers under S 482 can be invoked as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108 ) , Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and other cases. It is also

¶39

Crl.M.C.2267 of 2016

¶40

¶41

felt that quashing of the instant proceedings would bring about peace and secure ends of justice. No purpose will be served in subjecting the parties to the ordeal of a protracted trial in view of the settlement. It will only enure to waste valuable judicial hours. I am therefore of the view that the criminal proceedings pending as against the petitioner can be quashed .

¶42

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.3836 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodungalloor, are hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶45

das

Usha Ganesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Ganesh 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

Peter T.V Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Meenangadi

Ismail Vs State of Kerala

Sharafudeen Vs State of Kerala

G.Ramachandran Vs G.Varghese

Kabeer Vs Madhavan

Sanju @ Rehmathulla Vs the State of Kerala