Allowed

Binoj K.U., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2019Crl.MC/1438/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings based on a voluntary settlement. The offence involved alleged cheating by the accused while acting as a manager. Finding the dispute personal with no public interest, the Court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC to promote peace.

What did the court decide?

The accused filed an affidavit of compromise after termination of proceedings, thus the trial proceedings are hereby quashed.

Binoj K.U., Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1438 of 2019

¶6

CC 134/2015 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PALAKKAD

¶7

CRIME NO. 1002/2014 OF KASABA POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

BINOJ K.U., AGED 38 YEARS S/O P.V. UNNI, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, THURUTH, ALUVA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE & RESPONDENT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

2 HASHIM B., AGED 43 YEARS S/O BASHEER, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, SNOFIELD FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, KUPPIYOD, MARUTHA ROAD P.O., PALAKKAD-678007.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.PRASUN.S

¶15

SRI AJITH MURALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 1438 of 2019

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. No.134 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad. In the aforesaid case, he is being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 408 and 420 of the IPC.

¶22

Prosecution allegation is that while the petitioner was officiating the post of manager in the company namely Snofield Private Ltd, owned by the de facto complainant from 2009 to 11.08.2014, he manipulated the bills of the raw materials purchased for manufacturing Laaza Ice Creams and there by caused loss of Rs.8,03,959/- and cheated the de facto complainant.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the party respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the victim and the offender have arrived at a

¶25

Crl.MC.No. 1438 of 2019

¶26

¶27

compromise and narrating the said fact, the victim has filed an affidavit before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the termination of proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the parties and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would also refer to the affidavit and it is submitted that the parties have decided to live peacefully in future. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in dragging these proceedings.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents and that the State has no grievance in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved.

¶29

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their own free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntary and genuine, and can be acted upon.

¶30

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303],

¶31

Crl.MC.No. 1438 of 2019

¶32

¶33

the Apex Court has held 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. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653] .

¶34

Having considered the submissions advanced and on

¶35

perusing the records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶36

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner

¶37

Crl.MC.No. 1438 of 2019

¶38

¶39

now pending as C.C. No.134 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad are quashed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

IAP

¶44

Crl.MC.No. 1438 of 2019

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1002/2014 OF PALAKKAD CUSBA POLICE STATION

¶49

ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.1.2019

¶50

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶51

NIL

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

P.A TO JUDGE

Binoj K.U., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoj K.U., 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

Joby Vs State of Kerala

Shefrin Sheriff Vs the State of Kerala

Eliyamma Vs State of Kerala

Sasi Alias Renjith Vs Ramesh Kumar

Cheppu @ Shefeek, Vs State of Kerala

Mohammadali, Vs State of Kerala