Allowed

Yesudas Saimon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3312/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash proceedings against accused under the IPC and Cr.P.C. The dispute regarding joint property investment arose between parties with family connections. Since the matter was purely personal and amicably settled via a mediation memorandum, the Court quashed the criminal case to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings against the accused 1 to 5 in Crime No.670/2016 of Kuruppampady Police Station are quashed.

Yesudas Saimon 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3312 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 670/2016 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. YESUDAS SAIMON, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.SAIMON PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, 1ST MILE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O. ERNAKULAM.

¶9

2. JACOB SIMON,

¶10

AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SAIMON, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶11

1ST MILE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶12

3. JUBY YESUDAS, AGED 46 YEARS,

¶13

W/O.YESUDAS SAIMON, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶14

1ST MILE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶15

4. HANSON ISSAC, BRANCH MANAGER, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., SOUTH VAZHAKULAM BRANCH,

¶16

PERUMBAVOOR, KOCHI.

¶17

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

¶18

SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶20

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. (CRIME NO.670/16 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).

¶21

2. GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIS JOSEPH, 9-B, JEWEL HOMES, RAJAGIRI VALLEY, RNAKULAM, KOCHI-68011.

¶22

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

Crl.MC.No. 3312 of 2016

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶28

ANNEXURE-1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES BEFORE THE MEDIATION CENTRE

¶29

ANNEXURE-II: CC OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.670/2016 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION

¶30

ANNEXURE-III: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE R2 IN CRIME NO.670/2016 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶37

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶38

Crl.M.C.3312 of 2016

¶39

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶40

Dated 08^th June, 2016

¶41

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

1.The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 in Crime No.670/2016 of Kuruppampady Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered for offence under Sections.120B, 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477A r/w Section 34 of the IPC at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein.

¶44

2.The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioners as well as the 2^nd respondent had purchased an item of property in their joint names and in violation to the agreement to invest money in the business, funneled the money elsewhere , and thus committed the offence. In this petition filed under S.482 of the Cr.P.C., the proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the disputes have been resolved.

¶45

3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents.

¶46

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners as

¶47

Crl.M.C.3312 of 2016 : 2 :

¶48

well as the 2^nd respondent have close family connections and at the instance of the family members , the disputes have been settled amicably . It is also pointed out that in the course of legal proceedings before this court , the parties were referred for settlement to the Mediation Center and after long and fruitful discussions all the misunderstandings have been wiped out.

¶49

5.The 2^nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel and it is submitted that he has no objection in allowing this petition and quashing all further proceedings in the crime as the matter has been fully and finally settled. The learned counsel would further submit that in addition to the petitioners herein,there is one more accused who is arrayed as accused No.4 in the FIR and they have no objection in quashing proceedings against him as well.

¶50

6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties as evidenced by Annexure 1 memorandum of settlement and the dispute being purely personal in nature , the State has no

¶51

Crl.M.C.3312 of 2016 : 3 :

¶52

serious objection.

¶53

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 .

¶54

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303),

¶55

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 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.

¶56

9.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

¶57

Crl.M.C.3312 of 2016 : 4 :

¶58

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 personal 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.

¶59

10.After having anxiously considered the submissions, it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the

¶60

Crl.M.C.3312 of 2016 : 5 :

¶61

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.

¶62

11.In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the accused 1 to 5 in Crime No.670/2016 of Kuruppampady Police Station, Ernakulam District, shall stand quashed.

¶63

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶64

¶65

[True copy]

¶66

P.A to Judge

Yesudas Saimon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yesudas Saimon 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

Shyju @ Pallan Shyju Vs the State of Kerala

Padmanabhan Vs the Calicut Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Deepan Babu Vs State of Kerala

Hamsa Vs Sub Inspector of Police

M.M.Shoukathali Vs State of Kerala

Shanmughan Vs State of Kerala