Allowed

Bejoy Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2024Crl.MC/363/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous case involved a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings accused persons charged with cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court found the matter settled and held no public interest was involved.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.1563/2023 of Karukachal Police Station, Kottayam District, are quashed.

Bejoy Babu Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 363 OF 2024

¶3

CRIME NO.1563/2023 OF KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM

¶4

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶5

1BEJOY BABU
AGED 27 YEARS
PARAPALLY VEEDU,
ASRAMAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA
NOW RESIDING AT KANDAKAPPALLY,
NEDUMBRAKKAD, CHERTHALA, PIN – 688524

¶6

2BABU
AGED 56 YEARS
PARAPALLY VEEDU,
ASRAMAM WARD ALAPPUZHA
NOW RESIDING AT KANDAKAPPALLY,
NEDUMBRAKKAD, CHERTHALA, PIN – 688524

¶7

BY ADV VISHNURAJ

¶8

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031

¶10

2NEVIL JOSEPH
AGED 27 YEARS
MUKKATTU KAVUNKAL,
RAJAMUTTAM BHAGOM, UMBIDI P.O,
KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686540

¶11

Crl.M.C.No.363 of 2024

¶12

-:2:-

¶13

3SANTHOSH VIJAYAKUMAR
CHENNAI, GREATER CHENNAI,
TAMILNADU, INDIA, PIN – 600001

¶14

BY ADV KRISHNAN K

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI. M.C. ASHI
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.363 of 2024

¶19

-:3:-

¶20

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.363 of 2024

¶22

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2024

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.

¶25

Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.1563/2023 of Karukachal Police Station, Kottayam District, registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The second respondent is the defacto complainant while the third respondent is the third accused in the above crime.

¶26

According to the prosecution, accused had committed criminal breach of trust and cheating upon the defacto complainant by promising to give employment and collected a large amount of money, and thereafter failed to provide the employment or return the money and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the second respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor. Since the third respondent is the third accused in the crime, notice to the said respondent is dispensed with.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.363 of 2024

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

¶32

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] , the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

¶33

I have perused Annexure-2 affidavit filed by the second respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

¶34

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.1563/2023 of Karukachal Police Station, Kottayam District, are quashed.

¶35

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶38

Jka/20.02.24.

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.363 of 2024

¶40

-:5:-

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 363/2024

¶42

PETITIONERs’ ANNEXURES

¶43

Annexure1FIR IN CRIME NO 1563/2023 OF KARUKACHAL
POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
Annexure2AFFIDAVIT OF SECOND RESPONDENT.

Bejoy Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bejoy Babu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Migdad Vs State of Kerala

Priyaraj @ Aniyankunju Vs State of Kerala

Yesudasan Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan Vs Anila Prakash

Ajmal Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Marykutty Vs the State of Kerala