Allowed

Wwics Global Law Offices Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2024Crl.MC/672/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings regarding alleged cheating (Section 420 IPC). The High Court was satisfied that the matter was settled amicably and no public interest was involved, deeming continuation of proceedings futile.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.793/2023 of Chakkarakallu Police Station, Kannur District, were quashed.

Wwics Global Law Offices Private Limited 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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 672 OF 2024

¶5

CRIME NO.793/2023 OF CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE SATION, KANNUR

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶7

1WWICS GLOBAL LAW OFFICES PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A 31/A,
3RD FLOOR , NEAR RAJA GARDEN FLYOVER ,
RING ROAD , RAJOURI GARDEN ,
NEW DELHI , PIN CODE - 110027

¶8

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZECD OFFICER
SRI.SOHAN SINGH , LEGAL EXECUTIVE ,
WWICS GLOBAL LAW OFFICES PRIVATE LIMITED, A-12,
INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-6,
MOHALI, PUNJAB, PIN – 160055

¶9

2ASHLEY T RIDGE COOKE @ ASHRAFABIA ASHLY
BRANCH IN CHARGE WWICS,
15TH FLOOR, AL-SHAROOK TOWER 2,
JABER AL- MUBARAK STREET OPPOSITE DASMAN CIMLEX,
SHARAQ KUWAIT, PIN – 15300

¶10

3ATHULYA SUNIL KUMAR
AGED 45 YEARS
SENIOR IMMIGRATION OFFICER,
WWICS, 15TH FLOOR, AL-SHAROOK TOWER 2,
JABER AI-MUBARAK STREET,
OPPOSITE DASMAN COMPLEX SHARAQ ,
KUWAIT., PIN – 12027

¶11

4BALJIT SINGH SANDHU
AGED 77 YEARS
DIRECTOR-WWICS,
S/O GULZAR SINGH SANDHU,
NO.292, SECTOR 10, CHANDIGARH, PIN – 160011

¶12

Crl.M.C.No.672 of 2024

¶13

-:2:-

¶14

5DEVINDER SANDHU
AGED 54 YEARS
DIRECTOR-WWICS,
S/O BAUIT SINGH SANDHU,
NO.292, SECTOR 10A,
CHANDISARH, PIN – 160011
6LALIT BHANDARI
AGED 47 YEARS
EX EMPLOYEE OF WWICS,
S/O PREM CHAND BHANDARI,
H.NO.5/AV, VLKAS COLONY,
PATIALA, PUNJAB, PIN – 147001
7AVINISH KUMAR
AGED 58 YEARS
ACCOUNTS MANAGER, WWICS,
S/O BHAG SINGH, H.NO.201,
MILK COLONY, DHANAS VILLAGE,
CHANDIGARH, PIN – 169914
BY ADVS.
R.PREMCHAND
A.A.DILSHAH
M.VEENA

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶16

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHAKKARAKALLU POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNEKULAM., PIN – 682031
2SOORAJ.M.M
AGED 44 YEARS
SON OF SURENDRAN MURIKKIL,
RESIDING AT SWATHI , KAMETH ,
MAMBA POST, KANNUR KERALA, PIN – 670611
(DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT),
BY ADV BETSON P.KUNJAPPAN

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.672 of 2024

¶18

-:3:-

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI. MC. ASHI,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.672 of 2024

¶23

-:4:-

¶24

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶25

--------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.672 of 2024

¶26

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2024

¶27

ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.793/2023 of Chakkarakallu Police Station, Kannur District, registered for the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶30

According to the prosecution, the accused had, promised to provide a visa to the defacto complainant and collected an amount of Rs. 1,97,000/- and thereafter failed to provide the visa or return the amount.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.672 of 2024

¶34

-:5:-

¶35

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].

¶36

I have perused Annexure-4 affidavit filed by the 2^nd 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.

¶37

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.793/2023 of Chakkarakallu Police Station, Kannur District, are quashed.

¶38

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶41

Jka/21.02.24.

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.672 of 2024

¶43

-:6:-

¶44

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 672/2024

¶45

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES

¶46

Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER COMPANY DATED 22/11/2021.
Annexure 2TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 793/2023 DATED
08/08/2023REGISTEREDWITHTHE
CHAKKARAKALLU POLICE STATION, KANNUR
DISTRICT.
Annexure 3TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 07/12/2023.
Annexure 4TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
11/12/2023 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE NOTARY AT ERNAKULAM.

Wwics Global Law Offices Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wwics Global Law Offices Private Limited 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

Radhakrishnan Vs Anila Prakash

Ajmal Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Bejoy Babu Vs State of Kerala

Tony K J Vs State of Kerala

Greeshma @ Sreekutty Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Renuka Vs State of Kerala