Disposed

K.N. Ramakrishnan v. K.M.Chacko

Kerala HC2 Jun 2017Crl.MC/1406/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a criminal miscellany petition seeking quashing of an order and recall of a non-bailable warrant. Based on a reported mediation agreement settling the dispute, the court closed the proceedings without recording the agreement.

What did the court decide?

Matter disposed of by ordering closure of further proceedings based on the submitted mediation agreement without formally recording it.

K.N. Ramakrishnan Vs K.M.Chacko — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/12TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1406 of 2017 ()

¶6

--------------------------CRL.MP.434/2017 IN ST.399/2014 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:-:

¶8

K.N. RAMAKRISHNAN,

¶9

AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, THOMPIL VEETTIL, VELLANNUR, VARAYANNUR P.O., KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SASI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:-:

¶12

1.K.M.CHACKO,

¶13

AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, SANKARATHIL VEETTIL, ELAKOLLUR P.O., PRAMODOM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 691.

¶14

2.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI

¶16

SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAIGI JACOB PALETTY

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 1406 of 2017 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE A1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN S.T.NO.399/14 DATED 20.10.2014 OF C.J.M. COURT PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶23

ANNEXURE A2. TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 12.12.15 OF THE LOK ADALAT OF S.T.NO.399/14.

¶24

ANNEXURE A3. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO.434/17 DATED 04.02.17 IN S.T.NO.399/14.

¶25

ANNEXURE A4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2011(4) KLT 857 S.C.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No.1406 Of 2017

¶33

Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2017.

¶34

The prayer in this Crl.M.C is as follows:

¶35

“.....................to quash the order in Annexure A3 dated 4-2-17 and issue a direction to the Court below to re-call the NBW against the petitioner and close the case S.T.No.399/14 pending before it.”

¶36

Earlier the matter has been settled between the petitioner-

¶37

accused and 1^st respondent-complainant as per Anx.A-2 award passed

¶38

by the Adalat under the Legal Service Authorities Act. The said award reads as follows:

¶39

“AWARD

¶40

The dispute between the parties having been referred for determination to the Lok Adalath and the parties having compromised settled the case/matter, the following award is passed in terms of the settlement.

¶41

The Respondent agrees to pay Rs.5,45,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs forty five thousand only) with in one month from today, The petitioner agrees to the same.

¶42

The parties are informed that the court fee, if any, paid by any of them shall be refunded.”

¶43

Later, when this matter came up for consideration on

¶44

24.3.2017, at the request of both sides, the following interim order has

¶45

been passed which reads as follows:

¶46

::2::

¶47

Crl.M.C.No.1406 Of 2017

¶48

“Sri.N.N.Sasi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Santhoth P.Abraham, learned counsel appearing for R-1 complainant, submit on instructions from their parties that their respective parties are willing to examine the option of mediated settlement. Accordingly, the petitioner-accused and R-1 (complainant) will personally appear before the Nodal Officer of the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ernakulam, attached to this Court, at 10:15 a.m. on 3.4.2017, upon which the parties shall be referred to a mediator and the mediator will commence the mediation process on the same day itself and will endeavour to complete the same within six weeks and will submit a final report on the outcome of the mediation process.

¶49

The interim order will stand extended until the next posting date.

¶50

List on 1.6.2017 for consideration of the mediation report.”

¶51

Now, Sri.N.N.Sasi, learned counsel appearing for the

¶52

petitioner-accused and Sri.Santhosh P.Abraham, learned counsel appearing for R-1 complainant submit on the basis of instructions from their respective parties that their parties have resolved the entire disputes regarding the cheque in question through mediation entered at the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ernakulam, and the original of the mediation agreement has been made available before this Court for perusal, which reads as follows:

¶53

“MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 89 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READ WITH RULES 24 & 25 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION), RULES, 2008:

¶54

The dispute between the parties were earlier settled before the Lok Adalath, Pathanamthitta on 12.12.2015, the award is produced as Annexure 2 in the Crl. M.C.

¶55

The respondent agreed to hand over the original title deed, which is given to him as security by the petitioner for the amount received, to the banker/financier arrange by the petitioner, from which he (petitioner) intends to take loan for the payment of the award amount stated in Clause 1,(i.e., Rs.5,45,000/- Rupees Five lakhs

¶56

::3::

¶57

Crl.M.C.No.1406 Of 2017

¶58

Forty five thousand only), on payment of Rs. 5,45,000/-Rupees Five lakhs Forty five thousand only to the respondent by the banker/financier.

¶59

The respondent will produce the original title deed before the above said banker/financier, if they require the same before the payment as stated in Clause 2, for ascertaining the authenticity of the document and the settlement arrived between the parties and take back the same.

¶60

The petitioner will arrange the above said loan from the banker/financier within a period of three months from today. After the said period the respondent have the right to execute the award on the Lok Adalath, Pathanamthitta dated 12.12.2015 (Annexure 20 before the appropriate Court/forum,, if the petitioner fails to pay the amount due as stated in Clause 2.

¶61

On receipt of the settled amount of Rs. 5,45,000/-Rupees Five lakhs Forty five thousand only, the respondent have no lien or right over the above said title deed on the petitioner. On satisfaction of Clause 2, the petitioner can take back the original title deed from the banker/financier directly.

¶62

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2017.

¶63

Petitioners Respondent sd/- sd/K.N. Ramakrishnan K.M. Chacko sd/- sd/Counsel for the Petitioners Counsel for the Respondent”

¶64

Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said mediation agreement may be recorded and the petition may be closed in the light of the provisions contained in the said mediation agreement. In the light of the mediation agreement arrived at between the parties in order to effectuate Anx.A-2 Lok Adalat Award, the criminal trial court may close all further proceedings and the parties should abide by the present mediation agreement and if the

¶65

::4::

¶66

Crl.M.C.No.1406 Of 2017

¶67

complainant has any grievance in that regard, it is for the petitioner to take steps in the appropriate proceedings. The petitioner will produce a

¶68

certified copy of this order before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, for information and appropriate action.

¶69

With these observations and directions, the Crl.M.C. stands finally disposed of.

¶70

ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶71

bkn/-

K.N. Ramakrishnan v. K.M.Chacko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N. Ramakrishnan v. K.M.Chacko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaskaran Vs Balakrishnan

M/S. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd. Vs Prakash O.V

Velayudhan Vs Girishkumar

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd. Vs B.Roy

M. Nishanth Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith J. Kappan Vs M/S. Sobha Steel