Allowed

Bijoy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Dec 2016Crl.MC/7115/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that since the dispute was amicably resolved and purely personal, quashing the case would secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.1515 of 2015 and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

Bijoy 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

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7115 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1515/2015 OF KASABA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED.:

¶8

BIJOY AGED 37, S/O GOPI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, BLACKBERRY CHITS, HAPPY BUILDINGS, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT PUTHUPPALLI, MULANGU DESOM, THOTTIPAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶13

2. SISHANT, AGED 35, S/O LATE SIVADASAN O.K RESIDING AT MAKKANAM THURUTHI HOUSE, NEAR VIYYUR VISHNU TEMPLE, KOLLAM ( PO),KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.PIN-673307.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL (KUMMANAM) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.R. DHANIL

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 7115 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶19

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 23.11.2015 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 22.8.2016.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶26

¶27

Crl.M.C. No. 7115 of 2016

¶28

- - - - Dated 1^st December, 2016

¶29

¶30

ORDER

¶31

1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.

¶32

2.The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1515 of 2015 of Kozhikode Kasaba Police Station registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent alleging offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 76 and 79 of the Kerala Chit Funds Act, 1982 and under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶33

3.The prosecution allegation is that the 2^nd respondent was induced by the petitioner to join a chit for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs which was conducted by him and thereafter deceived the subscriber by disbursing only a sum of Rs.2,74,000/- towards the prize amount.

¶34

Crl.M.C. No.7115 of 2016

¶35

-2-

¶36

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶37

5.The learned counsel appearing for the 3^nd respondent submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony.

¶38

6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioner. It is also submitted that offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC has

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.7115 of 2016

¶40

-3-

¶41

been deleted.

¶42

7.In Gian singh v. State of Punjab [ 2012 (10) SCC 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. It was observed as follows :

¶43

“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

¶44

8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. [ 2014 (6) SCC

¶45

466], the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶46

Crl.M.C. No.7115 of 2016

¶47

-4-

¶48

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶49

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶50

(i) ends of justice, or

¶51

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶52

xxxxxxx

¶53

xxxxxxx

¶54

9.The offence committed by the petitioner cannot be said to

¶55

be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.

¶56

Crl.M.C. No.7115 of 2016 -5-

¶57

10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.

¶58

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.1515 of 2015 of Kozhikode Kasaba Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner are quashed.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶61

kp/-2.12.16

Bijoy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijoy 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

Siddque Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Vs State of Kerala

E.P.Siyad Vs State of Kerala

Fazil Vs State of Kerala

Reghu Vs State of Kerala