Allowed

Sreekumar v. Pushpa Vijayan

Kerala HC25 Nov 2022Crl.MC/2617/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed further proceedings in a criminal case alleging cheating and forgery under IPC Sections 420, 465, 468 r/w 34. Quashing was permitted under S.482 CrPC as the matter was amicably settled between parties, rendering further prosecution futile.

What did the court decide?

Quashed all further proceedings in C.C.No.253 of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni as against the petitioner.

Sreekumar Vs Pushpa Vijayan — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶4

1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2617 OF 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.613/2009 OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA CC 253/2011 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT,

¶7

RANNI

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶9

SREEKUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.DAMODHARAN NAIR, VADAKKEVELLANGOOR, MEKKUZHOOR, RANNI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.R.RENJITH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED WITNESSES AND

¶12

STATE:

¶13

1 PUSHPA VIJAYAN, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAN, SABARI SADANAM, PALACHUVADU, ELANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISRICT-689643.

¶14

2 SYAMALA, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.SADHANANDAN, VANIYEDATHU HOUSE, CHENTHARAPPANI, EDATHUKUTHI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, TRISSUR DISTRICT-689643.

¶15

3 SASIKALA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.LATE SANTHOSH KUMAR, VADAKKEVELLANGOOR, MEKKUZHOOR, RANNI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689672.

¶16

4 SRUTHI, AGED 17 YEARS, D/O.SASIKALA, VADAKKEVELLANGOOR, MEKKUZHOOR, RANNI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689672.

¶17

5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶18

BY ADV SRI.JOSE ANTONY, SMT.T.V.NEEMA, SR.P.P.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶20

25.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.MC NO. 2617 OF 2018

¶22

..2..

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all

¶25

further proceedings in C.C.No.253 of 2011 on the

¶26

files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni.

¶27

2 . During the pendency of the above Crl.M.C.,

¶28

the matter has been settled between the parties.

¶29

The petitioner is the accused No.1. The

¶30

accused Nos.2 to 4 are no more. The 1^st respondent is the de facto complainant. The respondents 2 to 4 are the injured.

¶31

The offences alleged against the petitioner

¶32

are punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶33

The respondents 1 to 4 entered appearance

¶34

through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.

¶35

I have heard Sri.M.T.Sureshkumar, the

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 2617 OF 2018

¶37

learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Jose Antony

¶38

the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶39

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondents 1 to 4 would

¶40

show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein they reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶41

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and

¶42

Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High

¶43

..4..

¶44

CRL.MC NO. 2617 OF 2018

¶45

Court by invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶46

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to all further proceedings in C.C.No.253 of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶47

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view

¶48

CRL.MC NO. 2617 OF 2018

¶49

that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.253 of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni as against the petitioner hereby stands quashed.

¶50

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH , JUDGE

¶51

¶52

CRL.MC NO. 2617 OF 2018

¶53

..6..

¶54

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2617/2018

¶55

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶56

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.10.2009 WHICH WAS NUMBERED AS CRIMINAL MP NO.4512 OF 2009. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.613 OF 2009 DATED 06.11.2009. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 23.08.2013 OF LATE SANTHOSH KUMAR. ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 15.12.2010 IN C C NO.253 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, RANNI.

Sreekumar v. Pushpa Vijayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekumar v. Pushpa Vijayan

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

Mehaboob Vs State of Kerala Rep by Public Prosecutor

M.P.Mohanan Vs Sudha Devi K.V.

Sarath Vs State of Kerala

Shon Panicker Vs State of Kerala

Santhoshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Babu Vs State of Kerala