Allowed

Alli, W/O.Mundengattu Bahuleyan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Aug 2016Crl.MC/2636/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings for cheating and criminal breach of trust. Quashing was ordered as the dispute was personal, settled via compromise, and continuation of prosecution would cause prejudice.

What did the court decide?

PETITION ALLOWED. Proceedings in C.C.No.194 of 2000 against the petitioners are quashed.

Alli, W/O.Mundengattu Bahuleyan 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

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/10TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2636 of 2016

¶6

CC 194/2000 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KODUNGALLUR CRIME NO. 106/2000 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2 :

¶8

1. ALLI, W/O.MUNDENGATTU BAHULEYAN, KOOLIMUTTAM DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE.

¶9

2. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KARIKKUTTY, KOOLIMUTTAM DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION 698 003.

¶13

2. MURUKESAN, S/O.APPUKUTTY, RAMANKULATH HOUSE,PERINJANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK - 680 667.

¶14

*** ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED**

¶15

3. THE PAPPINIVATTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.R.309, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MURUKESAN, S/O.APPUKUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, RAMANKULATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶16

ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ORDER DATED 26/5/16 IN CRL.MA.50862016 IN CRL.MC.2636/2015.

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.HOOD

¶18

SMT.M.ISHA SRI.AMAL KASHA

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 2636 of 2016

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES -----------------------

¶24

ANNEXURE A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME.106/2000 DATED 20/3/2000. ANNEXURE B THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DT. 18/4/2016 RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

¶25

NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE

¶26

¶27

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J.

¶28

==================

¶29

Crl.M.C.No. 2636 of 2016

¶30

==================

¶31

Dated this the 01^st day of August, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

1.The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.194 of 2000 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodungallur. They are charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections

¶34

420, 427 and Section 34 of the IPC. The respondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant, who has lodged the complaint for and on behalf of the 3^rd respondent.

¶35

2.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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

¶36

v. State of Punjab and Another (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.

¶37

3.The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above

¶38

Crl.M.C.No. 2636 of 2016

¶39

¶40

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. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶41

The prosecution allegation is that the first accused had availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- from the Pappinivattom Service Co-operative Bank of which the 2^nd respondent is the Secretary. The property having an extent of 19.5 cents was mortgaged. It is alleged that later the accused had extracted earth from the mortgaged property and thus caused loss to the defacto complainant.

¶42

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

¶43

6.I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶44

Crl.M.C.No. 2636 of 2016

¶45

¶46

submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record.

¶47

7.The 2^nd respondent has sworn to an affidavit wherein it is asserted that he has no objection in allowing the petition and in quashing the proceedings as all the disputed between the parties have been resolved. All financial transactions between the 3^rd respondent and the petitioners herein have been settled.

¶48

8.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

¶49

Crl.M.C.No. 2636 of 2016

¶50

¶51

and harmony.

¶52

9.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 referred to above.

¶53

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.194 of 2000 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodungallur, shall stand quashed.

¶54

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, Judge

¶55

lsn

Alli, W/O.Mundengattu Bahuleyan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alli, W/O.Mundengattu Bahuleyan 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

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Ismayil Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran T I Vs the Range Forest Officer

Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala

M.T.P.Ansar Vs the State of Kerala

M.K.Muhammed Ali Vs M.K.Sayed