Allowed

K.J.Paul v. M.D.Jose

Kerala HC26 Jun 2019Crl.MC/4721/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings where the accused and the de facto complainant had amicably settled their dispute regarding a partnership firm and property assignment. The Court held the offences were personal in nature and quashed the case to enable peace.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings (C.C. No.1320 of 2012 along with the final report) pending against petitioners are quashed.

K.J.Paul Vs M.D.Jose — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.MC.NO.4721 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST CC NO.1320/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY

¶7

CRIME NO.343/2010 OF WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 :

¶9

1 K.J.PAUL., AGED 80 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH, KANADI HOUSE, ABINISSERRY VILLAGE, OLLOOR P.O., THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2 C.A.RAPPAI, AGED 79 YEARS, S/O ANTHONY, CHEENAN HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, OLLOOR DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

3 M.A.PAUL, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O ANTHONY, MANIYATH HOUSE, PUDUKKADU VILLAGE, PUDUKKAD DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE :

¶14

1 M.D.JOSE, AGED 79 YEARS, MUTTICHOOKKARAN VEEDU, PANAMKUTTICHIRA DESOM, OLLOOR, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN:680306. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI M.S. BREEZ, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRL.MC.NO.4721 OF 2015

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C. No.1320 of 2012 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry. In the aforesaid case, they face accusations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 405 and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶24

Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for considering the prayer sought for is that, the petitioners herein were the partners of a financial institution by name Olloor Finance. The de facto complainant is the legal heir of a deceased partner. The allegation is that the petitioners failed to induct the legal heirs of the deceased partner as partners in the firm and further, they assigned a property without their knowledge and consent and caused wrongful loss.

¶25

Heard Sri. M.Ravikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Sreekumar Chelur, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

CRL.MC.NO.4721 OF 2015

¶27

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the parties have managed to resolve their disputes and have agreed to live peaceably. It is asserted that in the affidavit sworn to by the 1^st respondent, he has stated that he has no further grievance against the petitioners. They maintain that the termination of the criminal proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between 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.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that no other crimes are registered against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved.

¶30

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victims and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Parbatbhai

¶31

CRL.MC.NO.4721 OF 2015

¶32

¶33

Aahir v. State of Gujarat [2017 (12) SCALE 187] .

¶34

Having considered the submissions and on perusing

¶35

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 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.

¶36

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.1320 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry are quashed.

¶37

SD/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶39

¶40

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶41

CRL.MC.NO.4721 OF 2015

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES:

¶45

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.343/2010 OF WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, NOW PENDING AS C.C. NO.1320/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, WADAKKANCHERRY.

¶46

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE IST RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, WADAKKANCHERRY AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES U/S.161 CR.P.C IN CRIME NO.343/2010 OF WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶47

ANNEXURE D THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT SIGNIFYING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONERS.

¶48

RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES:NIL

K.J.Paul v. M.D.Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.J.Paul v. M.D.Jose

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

Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Muhammedali M., Vs State of Kerala

Asmabi Vs State of Kerala

K.G.Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala

K.G. Balakrishnakurup Vs State of Kerala

Krishnaraj Vs State of Kerala