Allowed

Jayaprakash v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2017Crl.MC/991/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings under Sections 120(B) and 420 IPC. The court held the dispute involved monetary transactions with civil nature, and since parties resolved the issue, prosecution would not succeed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of C.C. No. 160 of 2017, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, wherein proceedings against petitioners are terminated.

Jayaprakash Vs the State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/2ND PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

CRL.MC.NO. 991 OF 2017 ()

¶6

IN CC 160/2017 OF J.M.F.C. - IX, ERNAKULAM (TEMPORARY) CRIME NO. 1537/2014 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:

¶8

1. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O GOPALAN, AGED 39 YEARS, ARIMBOOTH HOUSE, POONTHOTTAM POST, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,

¶9

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. VIDYA,

¶11

W/O.JAYAPRAKASH,AGED 38 YEARS,ARIMBOOTH HOUSE, POONTHOTTAM POST,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR

¶13

SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶14

SRI.V.K.SREEJITH

¶15

SRI.M.V.SURESH (KANNUR)

¶16

RESPONDENS/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶19

3. SHIJO.P.MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW,PANTHAPLACKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶20

4. JOSHY.P.MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW,,PANTHAPLACKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶21

R3,R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.NASSEER (ALUVA) R1&R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

CRL.MC.NO. 991 OF 2017 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶26

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.160/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE JFCM URT-IX,KAKKANAD

¶27

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶28

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

DST

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

Crl. M. C. No. 991 of 2017

¶35

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2017

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.160/2017 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Kakkanad arising from Crime No.1537/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was alleged by the defacto complainant that, the accused had collected 75 lakhs from₹ respondents 3 and 4 on a commitment that they would be made partners in the business run by them. Accordingly, towards the discharge of the liability arising there from, cheques were issued which got dishonoured.

¶38

Contending that the petitioners have now resolved the issue and that the defacto complainants who are the respondents 3 and 4 herein have no surviving grievance, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 relied on Annexures II and III affidavits filed by the respondents 3 and 4 reiterating the resolution of the disputes and expressing their intention not to pursue the criminal case.

¶39

¶40

Crl. M. C. No. 991 of 2017

¶41

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions

¶42

submitted that the parties have resolved their disputes and they are not involved in any other crime.

¶43

Essentially, the dispute arose out a monetary transaction. I am satisfied that the dispute between the parties have got a predominantly civil nature and hence in the light of the resolution of the parties, there is no chance of a successful prosecution. In the light of the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I feel that this is a fit case in which the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked.

¶44

In the result, Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.160/2017 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Kakkanad stand quashed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶47

Jayaprakash v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprakash v. the 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

Muhammed M.K. Vs State of Kerala

Murali C.P Vs State of Kerala

Junaid.N Vs State of Kerala

Akhil.a.K Vs the State of Kerala

Nihas Vs State of Kerala

Ajin Abraham Vs State of Kerala