Allowed

Manikandan.M v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2016Crl.MC/6111/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed the Final Report and further trial proceedings in a cheques-dishonour case arising from a vehicle loan default settled between the accused and the de-facto complainant, holding that no purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A1 Final Report and further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.573 of 2011 were quashed.

Manikandan.M 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6111 of 2013 ()

¶6

SC 573/2011 of PRL.ASST.SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 6:

¶8

MANIKANDAN.M,AGED 29 YEARS

¶9

MANAGER,M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LIMITED, IST FLOOR,ARAFA TOWERS,VELIYANNUR ROAD,THRISSUR.

¶10

MANISH MOHAN, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.MOHAN,VADAKKUM PARAMBIL HOUSE,ALAPPAD, THRISSUR.

¶11

M.T.JOHNY, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.THOMAN,MANIPARAMBIL HOUSE,ALAKAPPANAGAR, AMBALLUR,THRISSUR.

¶12

SALEESH, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.SHEKARAN,EARATHU HOUSE,KEEZHUR DESOM,KUNNAMKULAM,THRISSUR.

¶13

MADHUSUIDHANAN.M.K, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.P.NARAYANA KURUP,AYYAPPANKAVIL KURUPPATHU HOUSE, AAVOOR,PATTITHARA,THRISSUR.

¶14

JOJU.K.A, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.ANTHAPPAN,KANNAPUZHAPARAMBAN HOUSE,KURIYANCHIRA, CHIYYARAM,THRISSUR.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR

¶16

SMT.C.B.ANUROOPA

¶17

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶18

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶20

PRAKASHAN K K, S/O.KANDARUKUTTY, KALLADATHI HOUSE KAINOOR PO, PUTHUR, THRISSUR 680 014

¶21

R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.JOY

¶22

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI C K PRASAD

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-122016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 6111 of 2013

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶27

----------------------ANNEXURE-A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ANNEXURE-A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN CUM HYPOTHECATION AGREEMENT DATED 09.06.2009.

¶28

ANNEXURE-A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE GUARANTORS DATED 29.08.2011.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶30

TRUE COPY

¶31

PA TO JUDGE

¶32

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶33

¶34

Crl.M.C. No.6111 of 2013

¶35

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17^th day of December 2016

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

The petitioners are accused in S.C. No.573 of 2011 on the files of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur.

¶38

The above case arose out of Crime No.695 of 2010 of Mannuthy Police Station registered for offences under Sections 120B and 397 of I.P.C.

¶39

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as

¶40

follows:-

¶41

The petitioner availed a vehicle loan of Rs.2,89,000/from Sriram Transport Finance Limited, Thrissur. Since there was default in repayment of the instalments, the

¶42

Crl.M.C.6111/2013

¶43

: 2 :

¶44

accused seized the said vehicle on 22.8.2010 at 12 night

¶45

while the de-facto complainant was driving the said

¶46

vehicle, in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy by all the accused.

¶47

The petitioners have filed this application under

¶48

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing Annexure A1 final report and the further proceedings in S.C. No.573 of 2011 on the files of the court below.

¶49

Heard.

¶50

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for

¶51

the petitioners that the matter has been settled between the

¶52

parties, and in the said circumstances, the 2^nd respondent, who is the de-facto complainant, filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings. It

¶53

Crl.M.C.6111/2013

¶54

: 3 :

¶55

appears that the 2^nd respondent filed an affidavit stating

¶56

that the matter has been settled between the parties and in the said circumstances, he has no further grievance in the

¶57

matter. The offence alleged against the petitioners are not compoundable under Section 320 I.P.C. However, considering the nature of allegations, I am of the view that no purpose will be served even if the trial is proceeded with, particularly in view of the fact that the parties have settled the matter out of the court. Having regard to the allegations raised against the petitioners and the factum of settlement arrived at by the parties, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to quash Annexure A1 final report and further proceedings in S.C. No.573 of 2011 on the files of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, to

¶58

Crl.M.C.6111/2013

¶59

: 4 :

¶60

secure the ends of justice, and accordingly I order so.

¶61

In the result, this petition stands allowed, quashing

¶62

Annexure A1 Final Report and further proceedings against

¶63

the petitioners in S.C. No.573 of 2011 on the files of the

¶64

court below.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶67

dl/.19.12.2016

¶68

// True Copy //

¶69

PA to Judge

Manikandan.M v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan.M 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kolateri Purushothaman Vs P.B.Mohan Kumar

V.K.Dharmadas Vs Shaji

Aji Vs State

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Bijili Varghese Vs State of Kerala