High Court of Kerala allowed petition to quash criminal proceedings against petitioner for crimes under IPC 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 IPC. Relief granted due to private nature of dispute, settlement between parties, and no serious offences attributed.
Criminal proceedings C.C.No.1659/2016 against petitioner are quashed.
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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 2460 OF 2019
[TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1659/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IX, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF
CRIME NO. 31/2012 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION]
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SANJAY KUMAR,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. APPUKUTTAN NAIR, EDANJALI VEEDU, KALLOORKKAD
VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SALISH ARAVINDAKSHAN
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM
POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 18
2ASIANET SATELITE COMMUNICATIONS
2A, 2ND FLOOR, LEELA INFOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY M. RABI KRISHNA, SENIOR
EXECUTIVE ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD, 2A, 2ND
FLOOR, LEELA INFOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695
581.
R2 BY ADV.SAJI VARGHESE S C
OTHER PRESENT:
R1 BY ADV VIPIN NARAYAN -PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC No.2460/2019 2
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime
No.31/2012 of Palarivattom Police Station which is
now pending as C.C.No.1659/2016 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX,
Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the
petitioner are under Sections 406,409,420 r/w.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2.The prosecution case is that, during the
period 2010-2012, the petitioner colluded with
accused Nos.2 and 3 and collected an amount of
Rs.5,20,000/- as cash and through cheques from
various customers and misappropriated the amounts
manipulating the account of the 2nd respondent
Company. The accused were the employees of the
said Company at the relevant time. Crime was
registered on the basis of a complaint submitted
on behalf of the 2nd respondent and Annexure-1 is
CRL.MC No.2460/2019 3
the F.I.R. After completing the investigation,
Annexure-2 final report was submitted by the
Police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all
further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-2 as
against the petitioner. It is reported that the
prosecution against the 2nd accused is already
quashed by this Court as per Order dated
20.02.2020 in Crl.M.C.No.3868/2019.
3.Heard Sri.Salish Aravindakshan, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Sreeja V., the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State and
Sri. Saji Varghese, the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent.
4.The prayer for quashing the proceedings is
sought mainly for the reason that the dispute between
the parties has been settled and to substantiate
thesame, Annexure-4affidavitswornby
the 2nd respondent is produced. The fact of settlement
is acknowledged in the aforesaid affidavit
and it isalso specifically stated that
CRL.MC No.2460/2019 4
the 2nd respondent has no subsisting grievances
against the petitioner herein. The 2nd respondent
also clearly expressed his no objection in
quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
The learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent
also confirms the aforesaid settlement and
supports the prayer sought for by the petitioner
herein. The veracity of the settlement has been
examined by the Station House Officer concerned by
contacting the 2nd respondent.
5.On going through the nature of allegations
as contained in Annexure-2 final report, it can be
seen that the dispute is basically private in
nature. No serious offences are attributed against
the petitioner. Considering the settlement arrived
at between the parties, the chances of a
successful prosecution are very bleak and hence no
fruitful purpose would be served if the
proceedings are allowed to continue. Therefore,
CRL.MC No.2460/2019 5 I am of the view that going by the decision in Gian Singh v. 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 Cr.P.C. can be invoked.
Accordingly this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All
further proceedings in C.C.No.1659/2016 pending
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-
IX, Ernakulam pursuant to Crime No.31/2012 of
Palarivattom Police Station are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
CRL.MC No.2460/2019 6
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2460/2019
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.31/2012
REGISTERED BY THE SHO PALARIVATTOM
ANNEXURE 2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED
BEFORE THE LOWER COURT IN C.C. NO.1659/2016
ANNEXURE 3THE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ASCL/HRD/2012-13
REVOKING THE SUSPENSION OF THE PETITIONER
ANNEXURE 4THE AFFIDAVIT IN THIS REGARD DRAWN BY THE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed on grounds of settlement and doubtful success of prosecution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and AnotherExplained¶48
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4)KLT 108]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SANJAY KUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
ASIANET SATELITE COMMUNICATIONS
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court