Allowed

Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2021Crl.MC/7305/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings. The petitioner had been accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust regarding a vehicle loan, but the complainant (respondent) had acknowledged the liability as settled. Consequently, the court quashed the proceedings as no useful purpose would be served in continuing them.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No. 658/2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasargod are quashed.

Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 7305 OF 2016

¶6

 IN CC 658/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE’S COURT - I,KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 3:

¶8

1 ABDUL SALAM AGED 35 YEARS

¶9

S/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT DODIKKALA HOUSE, NATTEKAL,
POST ADHUR, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

2AISA A.
AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL SALAM,
RESIDING AT DODIKKALA HOUSE, NATTEKAL, POST ADHUR,
KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.
SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶13

1STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ADHUR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

2M/S.CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD.
DARE HOUSE -2, NSC BOSE ROAD, PARRYS, CHENNAI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SUNILKUMAR C.P., M/S.CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND
FINANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT KANHANGAD,
KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671123.

¶15

BY ADVS.

¶16

SMT.K.J.ANITHA
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
PP.SRI.ARAVIND V.MATHEW

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶18

10.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

CRL.MC NO. 7305 OF 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.658 of 2015 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Kasargode. The aforesaid case was registered based on the Annexure A6 private complaint submitted by the 2^nd respondent herein which is a finance company, against the petitioners herein and two other persons for the offences under Section 406 and 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The allegation against the accused is that the 1^st accused availed a vehicle loan of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) from the 2^nd respondent, for purchasing a goods vehicle. The other accused persons were sureties of the said loan transaction. Subsequently, the 1^st accused defaulted repayment of the loan and while the liability was subsisting the vehicle was sold to a third person without informing the 2^nd respondent. The aforesaid complaint was submitted in the above circumstances. An enquiry under Section 202 was conducted by the learned Magistrate on the said complaint and cognizance was taken as

¶24

¶25

CRL.MC NO. 7305 OF 2016

¶26

C.C. No.658 of 2015 which is now pending before the court below.

¶27

In this Crl.M.C., the petitioners herein are seeking to

¶28

quash all further proceedings in the aforesaid calendar case. It was pointed out that the entire liability has been settled between the parties and the 2^nd respondent has also filed an affidavit to that effect before this Court.

¶29

On perusal of the said affidavit, it can be seen that, the 2^nd respondent specifically acknowledged the settlement of the liability and also the settlement of the dispute which is the subject matter of the aforesaid complaint. They also conveyed their no objection in quashing the aforesaid proceedings as against the petitioners herein.

¶30

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent also acknowledges the aforesaid settlement and reiterated the contents of the affidavit submitted by him.

¶31

The dispute between the parties are private in nature and liaility which was existing on the part of the petitioners towards the

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 7305 OF 2016

¶33

¶34

2^nd respondent has already been settled. In such circumstances, I

¶35

do not think any fruitful purpose would be served by proceeding with the complaint. In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all proceedings in CC No.658 of 2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kasargode is hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶38

SCS

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 7305 OF 2016

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7305/2016

¶42

PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE 1TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC
4137/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED
JFCM COURT-I, KASARAGOD.
ANNEXURE 2TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.14-7-2014
IN CMP 5441/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE
LEARNED JFCM COURT-I, KASARAGOD.
ANNEXURE 3TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.386/14 OF
ADHUR POLICE STATION.
AANNEXURE 4TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT.22-9-
2014 IN CRMA 8919/14 IN CRMC 5322/2014
ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE 5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.11-11-2015 IN
CRMC 5322/14 ON THE FILES OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE 6THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
IN CC 658/15 ON THE FILES OF JFCM I
KASARAGOD.

Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Anversadath Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Joseph Vs State of Kerala

K.C.Sunny Vs the State of Kerala

Biju Abraham Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala

Arjunan Vs State of Kerala