Allowed

P.F Cyriac v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2016Crl.MC/7119/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against an accused in a moneylending dispute. Relying on settled precedents, the Court held that since the parties reached a settlement and the offence was not grave, quashing the case would secure justice and prevent abuse of process, resulting in the termination of criminal sentencing.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings under C.C. No.1531 of 2015 were quashed and all subsequent proceedings were terminated.

P.F Cyriac Vs State of Kerala — Money Laundering | 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 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7119 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST CC 1531/2015 of JFCM- I MARADU CRIME NO. 1255/2014 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

P.F CYRIAC AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIS, RESIDING AT PEECHANATT HOUSE, PANANGAD, KOCHI - 682 506.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.AJITH GEORGE SRI.ANTONY SHYJU SRI.ABHIJETT LESSLI SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.P.SAILESH SREEKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶12

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PANANGAD POLICE STATION, PANANGAD, PIN - 682 506.

¶13

3. SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O.GOVINDAN UNNI, VINAYAKA CHAKKALA MADOM, NOW RESIDING AT C-39, BSNL QUARTERS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 683 036.

¶14

R3 BY ADV. SMT.KRISHNA RAJENDRAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0212-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 7119 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶19

ANNEXURE-A1: A TRUE COPY O THE FINAL REPORT OF CRIME NO.1212/14 OF PANANGAD POLICE. ANNEXURE-A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1255/2014 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION DATED 11.9.2014. ANNEXUR-A3: TRUE COPY OF DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 14.12.2015 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MARADU. ANNEXURE-A4: TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT. ANNEXURE-A5: TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY DEFACTO COMPLAINANTY/3RD RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

VPS PS TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.M.C. No.7119 of 2016

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2016

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

1.This petition is filed under S.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.

¶31

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. No.1531 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Maradu. The 3^rd respondent is the de facto complainant. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner is proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 read with section 17 of the Money Lenders Act, 1958 and under section 3 and 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012.

¶32

3.The prosecution allegation is that after having advanced a

¶33

Crl.M.C.7119/2016

¶34

¶35

sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner realized excess interest and thus violated the provisions of

¶36

the Act.

¶37

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶38

5.The learned counsel appearing for the third 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.

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.M.C.7119/2016

¶41

¶42

against the petitioner.

¶43

7.I have considered the submissions.

¶44

8.In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶45

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 :

¶46

“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.”

¶47

9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶48

in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC

¶49

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

Crl.M.C.7119/2016

XXXXXXXXXXXX

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:

¶54

(i) ends of justice, or

¶55

(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.

¶56

xxxxxxx

¶57

xxxxxxx

¶58

10.The offence committed by the petitioner cannot be said

¶59

to 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.

¶60

11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of

¶61

Crl.M.C.7119/2016 5

¶62

the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of

¶63

the Code to quash the proceedings.

¶64

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C. No.1531 of 2015 on

¶65

the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Maradu

¶66

are quashed.

¶67

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶68

vps

P.F Cyriac v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.F Cyriac 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

B.Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Bijoy Vs State of Kerala

Mabin Mathew @ Babu Vs State of Kerala

Tomy Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Nizar Ahammed Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Rafeeque @ Rafeeque Vs the Station House Officer