Allowed

Nirmal Kandelwal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jun 2017Crl.MC/1608/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court allowed the petition to quash the criminal proceedings as the matter was settled, the second respondent had no objection, and no public interest was involved.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Crime No.446/2009 on the file of the Kadavanthra Police Station are quashed as against the petitioner.

Nirmal Kandelwal Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/6TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1608 of 2009

¶6

CRIME NO. 446/2009 OF KADAVANTHARA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4 :

¶8

MR. NIRMAL KHANDELWAL, M/S.FCML PROJECTS, A-217, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI 110 020.

¶9

BY SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.PRASUN.S SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT-STATE :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED

¶13

2. MIDDLE EAST HOTEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, S.A.ROAD, ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHARA P.O., KOCHI- 682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (CORPORATE AFFAIRS).

¶14

*** ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.08.2009 IN CRL.M.A.NO. 3230 OF 2009.**

¶15

R1 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.B.UDAYAKUMAR ADDL.R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN

¶16

SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.R.ANIL

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Msd.

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 1608 of 2009

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶22

ANNEXURE A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 446/2009 OF THE KADAVANTHARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.04.2009 PREFERRED BY M/S. MIDDLE EAST HOTEL COMPANY PVT. LTD BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI. ANNEXURE A3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE INVITATION LETTER 05.04.2009 AND THE COVER IN WHICH THE SAME WAS SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE AFORESAID SANT SINGH CHATWAL. ANNEXURE A4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 06.04.2009 WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS FORCED TO SIGN UNDER DURESS. ANNEXURE A5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 18.04.2009 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 02.05.2009 TO ANNEXURE A5. ANNEXURE A7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.04.2009 PREFERRED AGAINST THE AFORESAID SANT SINGH CHATWAL AND FINTAN FRANCIS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE I.G. OF POLICE. ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY M/S.FCML PROJECTS LTD. AND THE PETITIONER AS PLAINTIFFS AGAINST M/S. MIDDLE EAST HOTEL COMPANY PVT.LTD. & 8 OTHERS AS O.S.NO. 1081/2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI DATED 28.05.2009. ANNEXURE A9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 7691/2009 IN O.S.NO. 1081/2009 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI DATED 29.05.2009. ANNEXURE A10: THE TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A11: THE TRUE COPY OF THE HIGH SEA SALE AGREEMENT DATED 15.12.2008 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ANNEXURE A10 IS ISSUED. ANNEXURE A12: THE TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF ENTRY FOR HOME CONSUMPTION WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCTS COVERED BY ANNEXURE A10 AND A11.

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 1608 of 2009

¶24

ANNEXURE A13: THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.12.2009 FOR INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 SEEKING THE DETAIL PARTICULARS OF CONSIGNMENT RECEIVED FROM JAPAN VIDE BILL OF ENTRY BEARING ROTATION NO. 18376 IGM NO. 10183/2008 THROUGH VESSEL'S NAME/FLIGHT NO. EK530/2412.08 RELEASED ON 16.01.2009 TO M/S. MIDDLE EAST HOTEL COMPANY PVT. LTD.

¶25

ANNEXURE A14: COMMUNICATION DATED 04.01.2010 ISSUED PURSUANT TO ANNEXURE A13 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS. ANNEXURE A15: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.01.2010 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. ANNEXURE A16: THE ORIGINAL OF THE BILL OF ENTRY FOR HOME CONSUMPTION OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶26

ANNEXURE A17: THE TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO HSS 45/2008 DATED 15.12.2008, OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶28

ANNEXURE R2(B): TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 12.10.2009 FILED BY THE 2ND ACCUSED D5 IN CS(OS)NO. 1081/2009.

¶29

ANNEXURE R2(C): TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 13.10.2009 FILED BY THE 3RD ACCUSED D6 IN CS(OS)NO. 1081/2009.

¶30

ANNEXURE R2(D): TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 18.09.2009 FILED BY THE 5TH ACCUSED D7 IN CS(OS)NO. 1081/2009.

¶31

ANNEXURE R2(E): TRUE COPY OF THE HIGH SEA SALE AGREEMENT DATED 15.12.2008 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE COMPANY.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶36

Crl.M.C. No. 1608 of 2009

¶37

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2017

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶40

2.Petitioner is the 4^th accused in Crime No.446/2009 on the file of the Kadavanthra Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2^nd respondent is the victim. It is submitted that the matter has been settled and the proceedings in the criminal case may be quashed.

¶41

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶42

4.The 2^nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel and filed an affidavit, stating that the matter has been settled and they have no objection to the prayer in this Crl.M.C. being granted. I am satisfied

¶43

Crl.M.C. No. 1608 of 2009

¶44

..2..

¶45

that the allegation of settlement is true and no public interest is involved in this case. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.446/2009 on the file of the Kadavanthra Police Station are quashed as against the petitioner. If any material object has been produced in the case, the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders for its disposal.

¶46

Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶47

bka/-

Nirmal Kandelwal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Kandelwal 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

Baiju.T.D Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Asif. M.P Vs State of Kerala

Sabeer Vs State of Kerala

Fathima Vs State of Kerala

Basheer M.M. Vs State of Kerala