Partly allowed

Sunil Duth v. Sub Insepctor of Police

Kerala HC1 Dec 2021Bail Appl./700/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.M.C. No. 632/2019, Hon'ble Justice Gopinath P. allowed the petition to quash the FIR in Crime No. 3007/2017 involving offences under sections of the IPC related to forgery and cheating, due to a settlement reached between the accused and the de-facto complainant. Subsequent bail applications were dismissed as proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 632/2019 allowing quashing of FIR in Crime No. 3007/2017 allowed; Bail Applications No. 700/2018 and 1725/2018 dismissed.

Sunil Duth Vs Sub Insepctor of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 700 OF 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.3007/2017 OF ANCHALAMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

DISTRICT.

¶8

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶9

SUNIL DUTH AGED 49 YEARS AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. SHANMATHURA PANICKER, AMBIYILVEEDU, MARUNTHAL, PERINADU P.O., THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 601 601.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.SREEVALSAN.V SRI. V.AJITH KUMAR VETTATH SMT.M.K.SHIMI SRI.D.SREENATH

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINAT:

¶12

SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE ANCHALAMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1725/2018, 632/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl. Nos.700/2018, 1725/2018 and Crl.M.C.No.632/2019

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶21

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶22

1943

¶23

BAIL APPL. NO. 1725 OF 2018

¶24

CRIME NO.3007/2017 OF ANCHALAMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶25

DISTRICT.

¶26

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

¶27

VIMA R. AGED 42 YEARS D/O.VIKRAMAPANICKER, AGED 42 YEARS,AMBIYIL VEEDU, MURUNDAL,PARINAD P.O., KUPPANA, KOLLAM 691 601.

¶28

BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.S.SEETHA

¶29

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶30

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANCHALUMOOD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶31

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..700/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

Bail Appl. Nos.700/2018, 1725/2018 and Crl.M.C.No.632/2019

¶33

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶35

PRESENT

¶36

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶37

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶38

1943

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 632 OF 2019

¶40

CRIME NO.3007/2017 OF ANCHALAMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶41

DISTRICT.

¶42

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶43

1 SUNILDATH AGED 47 YEARS S/O. SHAN, AMBIYIL VEEDU, MURUNTHAL, PERINADU P.O, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, ANCHALUMMOODU, KOLLAM-691 601

¶44

2 BIJU AGED 47 YEARS S/O. VARUNAN, VARUN NIVAS, MURUNTHAL CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, ANCHALUMMOODU, KOLLAM-691 601 3 VIMA AGED 42 YEARS S/O. SUNILDATH, AMBIYIL VEEDU, MURUNTHAL, PERINADU P.O, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, ANCHALUMMOODU, KOLLAM-691 601

¶45

BY ADVS. PRATHEESH.P S.SEETHA

¶46

RESPONDENTS/STATE&DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶47

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31

¶48

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 691601

¶49

Bail Appl. Nos.700/2018, 1725/2018 and Crl.M.C.No.632/2019

¶50

¶51

3 SAJITHASOLY AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. LATE SHANMUTHURA PANIKER, AMBIYIL VEEDU, MURUNTHAL, PERINAD P.O, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691 601

¶52

BY ADV A.MUHAMMED RAFFI

¶53

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..700/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶54

¶55

Bail Appl. Nos.700/2018, 1725/2018 and Crl.M.C.No.632/2019

¶56

ORDER

¶57

[Bail Appl. Nos.700/2018, 1725/2018, Crl.M.C.No.632/2019]

¶58

The petitioners in bail application Nos.700/2018 and 1725/2018 are the 1^st accused and 3^rd accused in Crime No.3007/2017 of Anchalammoodu Police Station, Kollam District. When these bail applications were pending consideration before this Court, it appears that the petitioners entered into a compromise with the de-facto complainant in Crime No.3007/2017 and the memorandum of settlement has been recorded in proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam in M.C.No.95/2017 which appear to be proceedings between the petitioners in the bail applications relating to matrimonial disputes. The de-facto complainant in Crime No.3007/2017 is none other than the sister of the petitioner in Bail Application No.700/2018.

¶59

Though I had initially expressed dissatisfaction regarding the settlement of disputes between the petitioner in Bail Application No.700/2018 and the de-facto complainant in Crime No.3007/2017 in proceedings where matrimonial disputes between the petitioner in Bail Application No.700/2018 and 1725/2018 were involved, the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that it appears

¶60

¶61

Bail Appl. Nos.700/2018, 1725/2018 and Crl.M.C.No.632/2019

¶62

that several issues outside the proceedings in which the settlement was arrived at have also been settled.

¶63

Crl.M.C.No.632/2019 has been filed to quash the first information report in Crime No.3007/2017 of Anchalammoodu Police Station, Kollam District alleging commission of offences under 120(b) 380, 461, 465, 467, 471 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Sing Vs. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC) , this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be entitled to quash proceedings on the basis of settlement even in respect of offences which are not compoundable, if the offences alleged are such that does not involve or relate to any public issue or offences of a grave and heinous nature or relate to the offences against the society in general.

¶64

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the disputes were between the petitioners and the sister of the 1^st petitioner and considering the fact that the issues are stated to be settled, I am of the opinion that this Crl.M.C. can be allowed as no useful purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. The chances of a successful prosecution

¶65

Bail Appl. Nos.700/2018, 1725/2018 and Crl.M.C.No.632/2019

¶66

¶67

are remote in the light of settlement. That view of the matter, Crl.M.C.No.632/2019 is allowed and all further proceedings in Crime No.3007/2017 of Anchalammoodu Police Station, Kollam District will stand quashed.

¶68

In the light of the order in Crl.M.C.No.632/2019, no

¶69

further orders are required in the bail applications. Accordingly, bail applications stand dismissed.

SD/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

bng/01.12.2021

Bail Appl. Nos.700/2018, 1725/2018 and Crl.M.C.No.632/2019

¶75

¶76

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 632/2019

¶77

ANNEXURE 1 THE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 3007/2017 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REGARDING SETTLEMENT DATED 22.11.2018

Sunil Duth v. Sub Insepctor of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Duth v. Sub Insepctor of Police

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

Sibin Vs State of Kerala

Xx Vs State of Kerala

Xxx (Victim) Vs State of Kerala

Vima R. Vs State of Kerala

Sunildath Vs State of Kerala

Sona Mon Vs State of Kerala