Allowed

C.Sukumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Dec 2022Crl.MC/5800/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court of Kerala allowed a plea to quash proceedings against the petitioner, the second accused in a fraud case involving fake power of attorney. The court observed that the parties had settled all disputes and the private respondent had no further grievance, deeming no public interest involved in continuing the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case was allowed; Proceedings in C.C. No.144/2017 and all further proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the final report were quashed.

C.Sukumar Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 5800 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDERCC 144/2017 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

¶7

PALAKKAD

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶9

C.SUKUMAR AGED 57 YEARS

¶10

S/O. N. CHINNAPPAN, RESIDING AT VEPPADAI, ELANTHAKOTTAI VILALGE, TIRUCHENGODE TALUK, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMILNADU

¶11

BY ADVS. JACOB SEBASTIAN K.V.WINSTON ANU JACOB

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 031

¶14

2 S.J RAJKUMAR AGED 36 YEARS S/O. N. JAYABALAN, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 12, NARAYANA NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, KITCHIPALAYAM, SALEM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN 636 015 BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BINOY VASUDEVAN R.MANIKANTAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.5800/2021

: 2 :

ORDER

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2023

¶21

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in crime No.1282/2016 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶22

The allegation against the accused, total two in number, is as follows:, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention

¶23

to secure the property having an extent of 1.55 acres of land at Komarapalayam purchased by the defacto complainant, hatched a criminal conspiracy, fraudulently executed one fake deed of power of attorney and got the same fraudulently registered at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Palakkad, subjecting the same for some modification in survey numbers thereby incorporating three cents of property to create an impression that the same were purchased in the name of the petitioner and thereby caused a loss to the tune of `12 lakhs to the defacto complainant.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.5800/2021

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

The crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint submitted by the defacto complainant against four accused persons, including the petitioner herein, which was referred for investigation. After completing the investigation, the Police submitted Annexure-A3 final report against the petitioner and the 1^st accused. The 1^st accused passed away in the meanwhile and the proceedings against him stand abated. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner, who is accused No.2 to quash all further proceedings as against him pursuant to Annexure-A3 final report which is now pending as C.C. No.144/2017 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Palakkad.

¶27

Heard Sri. Jacob Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶28

Even though, this Crl.M.C. was originally filed for quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner on merits, during the pendency of the Crl.M.C. the parties have arrived at a settlement. On the basis of the said settlement, the 2^nd respondent filed an affidavit, substantiating the said settlement. In the said affidavit, it is clearly mentioned that all the disputes between the

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.5800/2021

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

parties have been settled and the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent conveyed his no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in the above case.

¶32

Upon perusal of the materials available on record and nature of allegations raised against the petitioner, I find that the dispute is purely private in nature. No public interest is involved and in such circumstances in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the continuation of prosecution as against the petitioner.

¶33

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure- A3 final report submitted in crime No.1282/2016 of Palakkad Town South Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto including the proceedings in C.C. No.144/2017 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Palakkad as against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

¶34

Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

ncd

Crl.M.C.No.5800/2021

: 5 :

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5800/2021

¶39

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO. 790/2016 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 0505-2017 IN C.M.P NO. 864/2017 IN CRIME NUMBER 1282/2016 OF THE PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION OF THE COURT OF SESSION, PALAKKAD Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C NO. 144/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD

C.Sukumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Sukumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas John Vs State of Kerala

Nabeesa @ Ithatha Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ali Vs State of Kerala

Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Sruthy Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala