High Court allowed petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings regarding dishonoured cheques. Court quashed case following compromise between parties, citing amicable settlement and absence of public interest.
Petition allowed; criminal proceedings under C.C. No.916 of 2015 quashed along with final report.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.1478 of 2019
CC 916/2015 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR
CRIME NO.256/2000 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED:
1 SANJAY SINGH CHOUHAN, AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. R.S. CHOUHAN, A-109, SHASTRINAGAR BHOPAL, MADHYAPRADESH, NOW RESIDING AT MIG-18, SHASTRINAGAR, BHOPAL-3
2 VIJAY VIKRAM SINGH CHOUHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. R.S. CHOUHAN, A-109 , SHASTRINAGAR BHOPAL, MADHYAPRADESH.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.NAVAS SMT.PRAISHEEL PRAKASAM SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 553
YOUSEF, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.SHEIK AMEER, THOPPIL HOUSE, VALLOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, OKKEL.P.O, CHELAMATTOM, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
Crl.MC.No.1478 of 2019
2
ADDL R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.07.2019 IN CRL.M.A.NO.3 OF 2019
BY ADV. SMT.V.SHARMILA
SRI AJITH MURALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.1478 of 2019
3
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Perumbavoor. It is based on a complaint lodged by the additional 3rd respondent that the crime was registered under Section 406, 420 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
Crl.MC.No.1478 of 2019
4
the parties and enable them to pursue their life as law abiding citizens. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings in view of the changed circumstances.
Crl.MC.No.1478 of 2019
5
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 victim 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.
In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.916 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP
Crl.MC.No.1478 of 2019
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO. 256/2000 DATED 07.04.2000 ALONG WITH PRIVATE COMPLAINT
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT FILED ON 09.06.2015 IN C.C. NO. 916/2015 BEFORE JFCM COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R3(A) THE TRUE COPY OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENT DATED 10.06.2019 ANNEXURE R3(B) THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.06.2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings regarding the dishonour of cheques resulting in a private dispute require to be quashed in view of the compromise between parties.
Whether Section 482 of CrPC can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings when the dispute is personal in nature and a settlement has been reached.
Whether continuation of prosecution serves any purpose when the possibility of conviction is remote and would cause oppression.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶38
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of GujaratRelied on¶38
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [2017 (12) SCALE 187]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SANJAY SINGH CHOUHAN
VIJAY VIKRAM SINGH CHOUHAN
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
YOUSEF
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
