High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings alleging cheating and criminally recovered property, relying on out-of-court settlement and guidelines from the Supreme Court.
All further proceedings in Crime No. 311 of 2016 of Athirappilly Police Station are 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 5TH DAY OF JULY 2016/14TH ASHADHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 2516 of 2016
CRIME NO. 311/2016 OF ATHIRAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
ROCKY ROY,
S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, KARIKKASSERY HOUSE, T.K.PRABHAKARAN ROAD, MALIPPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 511.
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATHIRAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-688 566.
3. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, DESOM, PANAVALLY P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALEPPEY DISTRICT, PIN-688 566.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
Crl.MC.No. 2516 of 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
| ANNEXURE I | TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE BILL OF THE CAR DATED 4-2-2012. |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE II | TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE CAR. |
| ANNEXURE III | TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 16-7-2013. |
| ANNEXURE IV | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED FROM THE VYSYA BANK TO THE PETITIONER. |
| ANNEXURE V | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOCHI. |
| ANNEXURE VI | TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RAJMOHAN. |
| ANNEXURE VII | TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 311 OF 2016 OF ATHIRAPPILLY POLICE STATION. |
| ANNEXURE VIII | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A.NO. 2470 OF 2016 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 7-4-2016. |
| ANNEXURE IX: | TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| ANNEXURE X | TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S SON RAJMOHAN. |
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
Crl.M.C. No. 2516 of 2016
ORDER
1.The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.311 of 2010 of Athirappilly Police Station. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant and it is at his instance that aforesaid crime has been registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
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 proceedings. The sole ground is that the Apex
Crl.M.C. No. 2516 of 2016 -2-
Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked de hors section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings.
Crl.M.C. No. 2516 of 2016 -3-
7.It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. The mere fact that the the accused No 2 and 3 have not ben traced out till date is no reason to disallow the prayer of the petitioner .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.
Crl.M.C. No. 2516 of 2016
-4-
falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex
Court in Gian Singh (Supra) and the other cases referred to above.
In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings in Crime No.311 of 2016 of Athirappilly Police Station are quashed.
Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE
kp/-7.7.16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC based on an out-of-court settlement.
Whether the personal nature of the offence and the absence of acrimony justify quashing the proceedings.
Whether the inability to trace other accused precludes quashing of the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶35
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108)
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.Relied on¶36
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) · Who else cites this
Yogendra Yadav and others V State of JharkhandRelied on¶37
Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand (2014 (9) SCC 653) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ROCKY ROY
STATE OF KERALA
RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Parties & counsel
