Allowed

B. Gnanasekar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Apr 2024Crl.MC/603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 CrPC was filed by an accused to quash FIR for cheating and cyber offences. The High Court, finding that the parties had settled the dispute via mediation and there was no public interest in continuing the trial, allowed the petition on the grounds that further proceedings would be futile.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No. 30 of 2023 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Ernakulam Rural are quashed.

B. Gnanasekar Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946

¶4

CRL.MC NO. 603 OF 2024

¶5

CRIME NO.30/2023 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL, Ernakulam

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

B. GNANASEKAR AGED 35 YEARS

¶8

S/O BHAKTHA VACHALAM, NO. 46, MILK DIPPO, BASIN BRIDGE
ROAD, WASHERMENPET, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU STATE, PIN –
600021.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SHIBIN K.F.
GISON ALIYAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THE CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL, SUBJAIL ROAD, NEAR ALUVA POLICE STATION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE., PIN – 683101.

¶14

3 DANIEL PAUL AGED 25 YEARS SANDEEPAM HOUSE, HOUSE NO. 69, CONVENT ROAD 2, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, PIN – 683108.

¶15

BY ADV VIVEK VENUGOPAL

¶16

SRI. M.C. ASHI (PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.M.C. No. 603 of 2024

¶19

¶20

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶21

Crl.M.C. No. 603 of 2024

¶22

Dated this the 11^th day of April, 2024

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash all proceedings against him.

¶25

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 30 of 2023 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Ernakulam Rural, registered for the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Third respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶26

According to the prosecution, the accused had cheated the defcto complainant by promising high return for a small investment, and failed to return the same and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioner ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

¶29

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the

¶30

Crl.M.C. No. 603 of 2024

¶31

¶32

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 A11 agreement under Section 89 of the CBC entered between the parties. 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. Subsequently, in a mediation initiated in B.A.No.7442/2023 the parties have settled the matter and the defacto complainant agreed to have the FIR quashed.

¶34

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No. 30 of

¶35

2023 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Ernakulam Rural are quashed.

¶36

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶37

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶38

AJM

¶39

Crl.M.C. No. 603 of 2024

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 603/2024

¶42

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶43

`Annexure-A1`	`A TRUE` `02-05-2` `POLICE`	`COPY OF THE` `023 ON THE` `STATION, ERN`	`FIR NO. 30/2023 AND DATED` `FILES OF THE CYBER CRIME` `AKULAM RURAL`
`Annexure-A2`	`A TRU` `REGISTR` `GOVERNM`	`E COPY OF` `ATION CERT` `ENT OF INDIA`	`PETITIONER'S FIRM'S GST` `IFICATE ISSUED BY THE` `DATED 25-01-2021`
`Annexure-A3`	`A TRUE` `EXPORTE` `INDIA D`	`COPY OF PETI` `R CODE ISSU` `ATED 23-01-2`	`TIONER'S FIRM'S IMPORTER-` `ED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF` `021`
`Annexure-A4`	`A TRUE` `OF THE`	`COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER D`	`PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER` `ATED NIL`
`Annexure-A5`	`A TRUE` `DATED 2`	`COPY OF THE` `0-12-2015`	`AADHAAR OF THE PETITIONER`
`Annexure-A6`	`A TRUE` `NO.5020` `MAINTAI` `PARRYS`	`COPY OF THE` `0068386033` `NED WITH THE` `CORNER CHENN`	`STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT` `OF THE PETITIONER'S FIRM` `HDFC BANK LTD. BROADWAY` `AI BRANCH DATED 05-05-2023`
`Annexure-A7`	`A TRUE` `SE/2023` `DATED 0`	`COPY OF THE` `/105, ISSUED` `5-01- 2023`	`GST INVOICE, BEARING NO.` `BY THE FIRM TO MR. NAJEEB`
`Annexure-A8`	`A TRUE` `SE/2023` `DATED 0`	`COPY OF THE` `/107, ISSUED` `5-01-2023`	`GST INVOICE, BEARING NO.` `BY THE FIRM TO MR. NAJEEB`
`Annexure-A9`	`A TRUE` `732 OF`	`COPY OF THE` `2023 DATED 1`	`JUDGMENT IN WP(CRL.) NO.` `4-08-2023`
`Annexure-A10`	`A TRUE` `2023 I` `FILES O`	`COPY OF THE` `N BAIL APPL.` `F THE HIGH C`	`INTERIM ORDER DATED 22-11-` `NO. 7442 OF 2023 ON THE` `OURT OF KERALA`
`Annexure-A11`	`A TRUE` `08-12-2`	`COPY OF THE` `023`	`MEDIATION AGREEMENT, DATED`
`Annexure-A12`	`A TRUE` `BAIL A` `THE HIG`	`COPY OF THE` `PPL. NO. 7442` `H COURT OF K`	`ORDER, DATED 19-12-2023 IN` `OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF` `ERALA`
`Annexure-A13`	`A TRUE` `FILED` `COURT,`	`COPY OF THE` `BEFORE THE` `ERNAKULAM IN`	`STATEMENT DATED 08-01-2024` `CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE` `CMP NO. 9608/2023`
`Annexure-A14`	`A TRUE` `FILED` `COURT,`	`COPY OF THE` `BEFORE THE` `ERNAKULAM IN`	`STATEMENT DATED 08-01-2024` `CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE` `CMP NO. 9609/2023.`

B. Gnanasekar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Gnanasekar 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

Renjith @ Renjithkumar Vs the State of Kerala

Christian Association and Alliance for Social Action, Vs State of Kerala

Ami T.R. Vs State of Kerala

K.Swasthik Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sobhanan Vs State of Kerala

V. M. Abdul Shukoor Vs Corporation of Cochin