Allowed

Dasan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/642/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cheques-bouncing case involving IPC offences 420, 468, and 471, the Kerala High Court quashed the conviction and sentence after the private complainant and accused settled the dispute. Relying on settled principles, the Court invoked intervention powers under CrPC 482 to allow the petition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned conviction and sentence set aside; proceedings quashed; petitioner released on liberty with bail bond cancelled.

Dasan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 642 of 2009

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 139/2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK, COURT NO.1 (ADHOC),MANJERI DATED 24-11-2008

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 880/2004 of JUDL.MAG.OF FIRST CLASS-I,MANJERI

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

DASAN, S/O.KRISHNADAS, NARAKAKKUNNU HOUSE, RAMANKULAM, NARUKARA,, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.VINODKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI.

¶14

ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED

¶15

*** 3. FISAL KARAT, AGED 47 YEARS,**

¶16

KARAT HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM (P.O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

(impleaded as per order dated 05.08.2016 in Crl.M.A.No.4163/2016

¶18

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.HRITHWIK

¶19

ADV. SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rmm

¶22

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.642 of 2009

¶24

Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2016

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This Revision Petition is filed by the accused, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence in Calender Case No.880/2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Manjeri as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.139/2006 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Manjeri. The offences charged against the petitioner were under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.

¶27

The prosecution case was that on 25.02.2003 at about 4 P.M., the accused requested loan of an amount of Rs.1 lakh for business purpose from the complainant and made the complainant believe that he had an account with the Manjeri Co-operative Urban Bank Ladies Branch and since the bank time was over he was not able to withdraw the amount. The accused issued a

¶28

cheque which could be encashed on the next day.

¶29

Crl.R.P.No.642 of 2009

¶30

¶31

Believing the accused, the complainant had advanced an amount of Rs.1 lakh on the same day and the accused issued a cheque bearing No.315349 making the complainant believe that the said cheque is drawn on his account and the same could be encashed on presentation on the next day. When the cheque was presented, it was returned with the endorsements “payment stopped by the drawer” and “signature is different”. The complainant subsequently came to understand that the cheque given by the accused was not in respect of the account maintained by him and that he had committed forgery by affixing his signature in the cheque leaf of PW.7. On being charged with the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, the accused/revision petitioner had pleaded not guilty and had denied the entire allegations. He stated that he had an account No.3362 in the Manjeri Urban Co-operative Bank Ladies Branch and PW7 had account No.3360 in the same branch. He also admitted that he was working as an employee of PW7 and since PW7 was illiterate, bank transactions were being dealt

¶32

Crl.R.P.No.642 of 2009

¶33

¶34

with by him.

¶35

PW1 to PW10 were examined by the

¶36

prosecution and Exts.P1 to P22 documents were marked. No defence evidence was adduced. Relying on the oral evidence rendered by PW2, who was the Manager of the Bank and on the specimen signatures of the revision petitioner, the trial court held that the signature in Ext.P-1 cheque tallied with Ext.P14 specimen signature as well as Ext.P-5 signature in the acknowledgment card and on that basis, conviction was handed down. Though the matter was taken in appeal before the Sessions Court contending that the conclusion that the signature in Ext.P-1 cheque was of the accused was erroneous, the said appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld. This is challenged in revision by the accused on the ground that the finding that the signature in Ext.P-1 cheque is that of the revision petitioner is not supported by any evidence and that the conviction and sentence is erroneous.

¶37

During the pendency of this revision petition,

¶38

Crl.R.P.No.642 of 2009 4

¶39

an impleading petition has been filed on behalf of the complainant in Crime.No.463/2003 which led to the instant conviction. The said Crl.M.A.No.4163/2016 was allowed. It is submitted that the question involved in the Criminal Case was with regard to the advance of an amount of Rs.1 lakh by the petitioner in the impleading petition and the issuance of a cheque by the revision petitioner in satisfaction of the debt. It is stated that the revision petitioner was working with PW7, who is now stated to be no more. It is further stated that the issue between the revision petitioner and the defacto complainant has been settled and the defacto complainant has no objection in quashing/dropping of the proceedings against the revision petitioner by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the person sought to be impleaded and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶41

Crl.R.P.No.642 of 2009

¶42

¶43

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing

¶44

for the revision petitioner that the instant case is one which relates to a private dispute between the defacto complainant and the revision petitioner. Though the offences alleged against the revision petitioner are not compoundable offences, it is submitted that it does not stand in the way of this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from exercising its powers for quashing proceedings in a fit case. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012 KHC 4530] to contend that in criminal cases having overwhelmingly civil flavour, this court would not be estopped from exercising its inherent powers for quashing proceedings where matters stand settled between parties. The Apex Court held in criminal cases having civil flavour and arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, matrimonial or family disputes where the wrong is private or personal in nature, the High Court

¶45

Crl.R.P.No.642 of 2009

¶46

¶47

may quash criminal proceedings, in view of the settlement between parties.

¶48

In the instant case, the trial has ended in conviction. Though appeal has been taken up before the Sessions Court, the same has also been unsuccessful. However, going by the allegations, it is clear that the instant case is one where dispute was predominantly of a private and civil nature as between defacto complainant and the revision petitioner. It is clear that no offence is made out which would have serious impact on the society at large to hold that the quashing of proceedings would not be in the interest of justice.

¶49

In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the request made by the revision petitioner as well as the defacto complainant for quashing the proceedings can be accepted in the instant case. Taking into account the contents of the affidavit filed in support thereof and the submissions made at the bar, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence of the revision petitions are set aside in view of the fact that the

¶50

Crl.R.P.No.642 of 2009

¶51

¶52

parties have settled the matter out of court. Revision

¶53

petitioner shall be set at liberty. His bail bond shall stand

¶54

cancelled.

¶55

Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE.

¶56

rmm

¶57

[ True copy]

¶58

P.A. to Judge

Dasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasan 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

Abdul Karim Sahib Noushad Vs Dewan Housing Finance Coorporation Ltd.

Kiran Aravind Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala Karshaka Samrakshana Association Vs Chief Conservator

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Menon Vs P.L.Lathi Kumar

Appukuttan Pillai Vs State of Kerala