Allowed

Prasanth Babu @ Prasanth v. Kaladharan

Kerala HC1 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2783/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash pending criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery. Finding that the dispute was settled amicably, voluntarily, and genuinely between the parties, the court held that continuing the case would be an abuse of process and contrary to justice, resulting in the quashing of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; the Final Report (Annexure A) and all further proceedings in CC No. 2245 of 2015 are quashed.

Prasanth Babu @ Prasanth Vs Kaladharan — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2783 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------CC.NO. 2245/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4 :

¶8

1. PRASANTH BABU @ PRASANTH

¶9

AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.JAYACHANDRA BABU, SNU HOUSE, ANAPPARA P.O.,

¶10

VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. SREEJITH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN, CHETTIKULAMBU HOUSE, MARUTHAMCHERRY, KAIRADY,

¶12

NEMMARA, PALAKKAD.

¶13

3. REJITHA

¶14

AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.PRASANTH BABU, SNU HOUSE, ANAPPARA P.O.,

¶15

VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

4. MURALEEDHARAN

¶17

AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE ACHUTHAN NAIR, PATHIYIL HOUSE, CHERAMANGALAM, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶19

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE :

¶20

1. KALADHARAN AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KANDANKUTTY, UPPUMPADAM, KINASSERY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 541.

¶21

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUALAM - 682 031.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

...2/-

¶26

Crl.MC.No. 2783 of 2016 ()

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶29

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.681/2014 OF ALATUR POLICE STATION IN C.C.NO.2245/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, ALATHUR.

¶30

ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶36

- - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2783 of 2016

¶37

- - - - Dated 1^st June, 2016

¶38

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 681 of 2014 of Alathur Police Station registered at the instance of 1^st respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sections 468, and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case has been charge sheeted and is now pending as C.C. No. 2245 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Alathur. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') seeking invocation of power of this Court to quash the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.

¶41

Prosecution allegation is that, the accused persons had borrowed a sum of Rs 1,50,000/- from the ₹ de facto complainant assuring him that the amount will be returned

¶42

Crl.M.C. No.2783 of 2016 -2-

¶43

within ten days for the purpose of purchasing some gold coins possessing supernatural powers from the 4^th accused. Later, instead of returning the amount borrowed, the de facto complainant was given spurious coins after making him believe that the same was precious.

¶44

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that during the pendency of criminal proceedings the matter was settled between the petitioners and the 1^st respondent herein. It is prayed that the disputes having been amicably resolved, continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and the same is to be quashed.

¶45

The 1^st respondent has entered appearance through counsel and referring to Annexure B affidavit sworn to by him, it is submitted that the said respondent does not have any subsisting grievance as against the petitioners herein and that he has no objection in allowing this petition.

¶46

The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain instructions from the Investigating officer and it is submitted that the State has no objection in acting on Annexure B

¶47

Crl.M.C. No.2783 of 2016 -3-

¶48

affidavit as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents.

¶49

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra.

¶50

7. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC

¶51

303), 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. This view was reiterated in

¶52

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others V State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .

¶53

Crl.M.C. No.2783 of 2016 -4-

¶54

It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this Court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the de facto complainant to great oppression and prejudice.

¶55

After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of

¶56

Crl.M.C. No.2783 of 2016 -5-

¶57

justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶58

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure A final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.2245 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Alathur shall stand quashed.

¶59

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶60

kp/-2.6.16

Prasanth Babu @ Prasanth v. Kaladharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanth Babu @ Prasanth v. Kaladharan

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

Ibrahim C.H Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim C.H Vs State of Kerala

Manesh @ Manu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafar Vs State of Kerala

Ramesh Rai Vs State of Kerala