Allowed

Girijan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2016Crl.MC/3814/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC for alleged money lending offences (IPC 420 and Kerala Money Lending Act). Finding the offence personal in nature and satisfied that disputes were amicably settled, the court quashed the charges to restore peace.

What did the court decide?

All further criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.975 of 2015 are quashed.

Girijan 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

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3814 of 2016

¶6

CC 975/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL CRIME NO. 625/2014 OF MUNAMBOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

GIRIJAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, PADINJARE KOZHIPPARAMBATH HOUSE, PALLATHAMKULANGARA KARA, KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.M.B.SHYNI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, CWS 3 AND 5:

¶11

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

¶12

2. RAJU, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT PERINGOTTUVETTIL HOUSE, WESTERN SIDE OF VACHAKKAL BUS STOP, EDAVANAKAD KARA, EDAVANAKAD VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 502.

¶13

3. REGHU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAN, RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUZHUPPILLY KARA, EDAVANAKAD VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 502.

¶14

R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.E.C.BINEESH R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 3814 of 2016

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

A1 A TRUE COPY OFTHE CHARGE SHEET IN CC 975/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL IN CRIME NO.625/2014 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶21

A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT/CW3 DATED 10.6.2016

¶22

A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 3RD RESPONDENT/CW5 DATED 10.6.2016

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶29

¶30

Crl.M.C. No. 3814 of 2016

¶31

- - - - Dated 5^th August, 2016

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

1.The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.975 of 2015

¶35

on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Njarakkal. He is charged for having committed offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lending Act, 1958.

¶36

2.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012

¶37

(4) KLT 108) 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 above proceeding.

¶38

Crl.M.C. No. 3814 of 2016 -2-

¶39

3.The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked de hors section 320 of the Code for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 of the Code be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶40

4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The respondents 2 and 3 have sworn to separate affidavits wherein they assert that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶41

5.The prosecution allegation is that on an inspection been conducted in the house of the petitioner certain valuable securities were recovered. It is alleged that the petitioner

¶42

Crl.M.C. No. 3814 of 2016

¶43

-3-

¶44

was lending money for exorbitant interest from the public

¶45

without a licence.

¶46

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

¶47

7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record.

¶48

8.The victims have sworn to separate affidavits wherein they assert that they have no objection in allowing the petition and in quashing the proceedings as all the disputes between the parties have been resolved and the parties are living in peace and harmony.

¶49

9.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

¶50

Crl.M.C. No. 3814 of 2016 -4-

¶51

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.

¶52

10.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 petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.975 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Njarakkal are quashed.

¶54

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.,

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

kp/-6.8.16

Girijan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girijan 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

C.v.Rappai Vs State of Kerala

Jamsheer Vs State of Kerala

Nihal Vs State of Kerala

G.Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Raju Vs State of Kerala

Kamarudeen Vs State of Kerala