Allowed

M/S.Polinsys Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. C.Cheriyan

Kerala HC23 Jun 2023Crl.MC/1490/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an immigration consultant where the cheque dishonour dispute arising from contractual dues was settled, the NI Act offence compounded, and further prosecution deemed an abuse of process. The underlying civil nature of the breach was highlighted.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case is allowed; all further proceedings in C.C No. 44/2012 are quashed.

M/S.Polinsys Immigration Consultants Pvt… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1490 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 44/2012 OF CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE,
ERNAKULAM

¶7

CC 803/2011 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOCHI

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

M/S.POLINSYS IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JOY STEPHEN AGED
51 YEARS, S/O.P.J.STEPHEN HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT TEE PEE YEM BUILDINGS, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD,
OPPOSITE BSNL BHAVAN, KOCHI 682016

¶10

BY ADVS.
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SMT.V.SHYLAJA

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

C.CHERIYAN

¶13

S/O. K.C.CHERIYAN, KARIPPAPARAMBIL VEEDU, FLAT NO.40,
ACARIA ARCADE, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADVS.
SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN 1

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

PP SANAL P. RAJ

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.M.C No.1490 of 2013

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2023

¶22

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C No.44/2012 pending on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The case originated from Crime No.223/2011 registered at the Kadavanthra Police Station, alleging commission of offences under Sections 406, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The petitioner is an immigration consultant and the 1^st respondent, a recruitment agency. The crime was registered based on a complaint filed by the 1^st respondent alleging that, contrary to the terms of an agreement entered between him and the 1^st respondent, the amount due towards commission was not paid and the cheques issued towards discharge of that liability were dishonored.

¶24

3.Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the 1^st respondent.

¶25

4.During the course of arguments it came out that, due to the dishonor of the cheques issued towards the discharge of liability, due towards commission, the 1^st respondent had approached the jurisdictional court with a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therein,

¶26

Crl.M.C No.1490 of 2013

¶27

¶28

Annexure (C) judgment was rendered, finding the petitioner guilty of the offence and sentencing him to imprisonment and fine. The dispute was subsequently settled by the petitioner paying the entire amount due to the 1^st respondent and the offence under Section 138 was compounded. In view of the settlement and the crime itself having been registered based on an agreement, the violation of which can only result in civil action, the further proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court.

¶29

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C No.44/2012, of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, arising from Crime No. 223/2011 of Kadavanthra Police station, is quashed.

¶30

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶31

¶32

Crl.M.C No.1490 of 2013

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1490/2013

¶35

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R.
ANNEXURE-BFINAL REPORT IN CC.44/2012 PENDING
BEFORE THE CJM COURT ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE-C THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
CC.NO.803/2011 JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE-I, KOCHI.

M/S.Polinsys Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. C.Cheriyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Polinsys Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. C.Cheriyan

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

P.M.Salim Vs State of Kerala

Sajitha a. Vs Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Prasad . R Vs Amit Chhabani

Prasad . R Vs Amit Chhabani

Shaji T.P Vs Sasidharan T.S