Allowed

Sobin Vargheese v. The State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Aug 2022Crl.MC/1344/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings for cheating against two petitioners working abroad who settled the matter with the private complainant. Relying on Gian Singh, the court held that continuing proceedings would serve no purpose after the verified settlement.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 1344 of 2022 allowed; C.C. No. 456/2021 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur quashed as against the petitioners.

Sobin Vargheese Vs The State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1344 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 456/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶7

CLASS ,CHITTUR

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 SOBIN VARGHEESE AGED 40 YEARS THEKKINBHAGAM, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682301 , PIN - 682301 2 NIXON K.J AGED 38 YEARS NIXON K.J, S/O JHONY K D,AGED 38 YEARS, KOKKATT HOUSE, PULLUR, KALLETTUMKARA P.O THRISSUR, PIN 680683 , PIN - 680683 BY ADVS. SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL) P.N.ANOOP M.S.SANDEEP SUDHAKARAN CHITHRA PRABHA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 682035, PIN – 682035

¶12

Crl.M.C.No. 1344 of 2022

¶13

¶14

2 2. PRAJOD P AGED 31 YEARS 2. PRAJOD P, S/O PRABHAKARAN, AGED 31 YEARS, PARUTHIKAVU, TATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678102 , PIN - 678102 BY ADV P.ABDUL NISHAD PULLURSHANGATIL HOUSE

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.M.C.No. 1344 of 2022

¶17

¶18

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J

¶19

…......................................

¶20

Crl.M.C.No. 1344 of 2022

¶21

…............................................................ Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 68/2021 of Chittur Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.456/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 417 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The prosecution case is that, the 1^st and 2^nd accused who are working abroad, collected an amount of Rs.1,50,000/from the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant offering him to arrange a job visa to Portugal. Later, no visa was arranged and the complaint was submitted in such circumstances. Annexure 1 Final Report submitted by the police after conducting the investigation thereon. This Crl.M.C., is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶25

¶26

Crl.M.C.No. 1344 of 2022

¶27

Heard, Sri. Santhosh Peter, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. Abdul Nishad P., the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶28

The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the injured person has sworn Annexure 2. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and the injured person has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. He also conveyed that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the 2^nd respondent has reiterated that, he does not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein.

¶29

¶30

Crl.M.C.No. 1344 of 2022

¶31

Going through the materials available on record, it is discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in Gian Singh v.

¶32

State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked.

¶33

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No. 68/2021 of Chittur Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.456/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶34

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE

¶35

Dxy

¶36

Crl.M.C.No. 1344 of 2022

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1344/2022

¶39

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE CHITTOOR POLICE IN CRIME NO. 68/2021 ANNEXURE2 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Sobin Vargheese v. The State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobin Vargheese v. The 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreejith @ Girish Vs State of Kerala

Anil, Vs State of Kerala

T. Moideen Vs State of Kerala

Usha Devi, Vs State of Kerala

T.a.Sundar Menon Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Joseph Vs State of Kerala