High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed/Discharged

Bizarre Marketing Systems Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Ashok Menon
Judgment Date
2020-03-04
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed; the entire proceedings in CC No.545/2013 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta, are quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the accused are discharged.
Final Disposition
Quashed/Discharged

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • BIZZARRE MARKETING SYSTEMS PVT.LTD.
  • BIZARRE GLOBAL MARKETING SYSTEMS LTD.
  • BIZARRE BUSINESS CORPORATION LTD.
  • BIZARRE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PVT. LTD.
  • ABDUL ARSHAD
  • GOPINATHAN
  • GEORGE ALEXANDER
  • P. KRISHNA DAYAL
  • KUNHI MUHAMMED
  • MAYA K.P
  • NIJI K. MAJEED
  • NOUSHAD S
  • JISHAMOL BAIJU
  • BEENA K.E
  • ANEESH
  • NABEESA P.T
  • PRADEESH CHACKO
  • PRADEEP P.B
  • BABURAJAN V.A
  • SAJI KRISHNAN
  • ARUN B
  • PRADEESH P B
  • PRYESH
  • MANOJ M C
  • SASIDHARAN
  • RATHISH

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • SUMAVALLI KOYIKKALETH HOUSE
  • THANKAMANI P PUTHIYAVEETTIL
  • CHANDRIKA W/O. SREEDHARAN
  • EBRAHIM M.K
  • ABOOBACKAR V VELUTHENDIKKUNNU
  • RAHIYANATH PALAKUNNU
  • HAJARA K.K
  • BASHEER C CHERUVIL
  • FATHIMA C.K
  • ABDUL KAREEM K.K
  • ASMA T.K
  • AHNAS K.K
  • SREEJA K.N

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S. Rajeev
  • • K. K. Dheerendra Krishnan
  • • D. Feroze
  • • V. Vinay

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Suman Chakravarthy (Senior Govt. Pleader)
  • • Ramesh Chand (PP)
  • • Benoj C Augustine
  • • Smt. P. Parvathy
  • • Rafeeq V.K.
  • • Saijo Hassan
  • • Vishnu Bhuvanendran

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment in Crl.MC.No.941 of 2017 arises from an application to quash proceedings in CC 545/2013 of the Kalpetta Chief Judicial Magistrate, under IPC section 420 and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The petitioners are four companies—Bizarre Marketing Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bizarre Global Marketing Systems Ltd., Bizarre Business Corporation Ltd., and Bizarre International Business Pvt. Ltd.—and 22 individuals who served as directors or officers. The respondents, including the State and 13 complainants, allege a cheating scheme through a commercial transaction. The CBCID report notes about 63 cases filed against the petitioners and many more under investigation. Several complaints have been settled or resulted in acquittals, suggesting potential futility of continued prosecution. The petition relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (and Others) and the related Gold Quest decision, arguing that where disputes are substantially civil/commercial in nature and there is a genuine settlement with no chance of conviction, the High Court can quash proceedings under 482 Cr.P.C, subject to notable exceptions. The court recognizes the civil flavour of the transaction, the settlements reached with thirteen complainants, and the ongoing effort to settle remaining disputes. It ultimately holds that continuing trial would be futile and discharging the accused is warranted, quashing the entire proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 420 of IPCSection 3 and 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978Section 482 Cr.P.CArticle 226 of the Constitution

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (and Another) doctrine: quashing allowed where disputes are civil/commercial and settled, with exceptions for gravest offences; if conviction unlikely, continuing prosecution is wasteful.
  • Civil flavour doctrine: offences arising from civil/financial transactions may be treated differently for quashing under 482 Cr.P.C.
  • Gold Quest International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (referenced as background)—context for settlement-based quashing.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the disputes are of a civil/commercial character and that there has been extensive settlement with complainants; several cases have been settled or resulted in acquittals, rendering continued prosecution futile. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (and Others) and Gold Quest International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, they contend that where there is a genuine settlement and no chances of conviction, the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be quashed to avoid futility, especially in commercial/financial transactions. They argue the offences are part of a large mercantile scheme; many cases against them have been resolved; quashing would conserve judicial time and resources.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents note that despite settlements with some complainants, there are numerous pending investigations and 63 cases in which final reports have been filed; many cases continue to be pursued. They rely on existing Supreme Court principles that Section 482 Cr.P.C can be used to quash where there is settlement and no likelihood of conviction, but emphasize caution given the breadth of cases and the potential public interest in investigations. They acknowledge that several grievances have been redressed but contend that a blanket quashing should not undermine investigations into potentially criminal schemes.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another[2012 KHC 4530]PositiveGround for quashing based on civil/commercial nature and settlement, with limitations for grave offences.
Gold Quest International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others[2014 KHC 4572]Mentioned OnlyReferenced as related authority; not the primary basis for quashing in this case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Bizarre Marketing Systems Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 545/2013 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT , KALPETTA** **CRIME NO.182/2011 OF CBCID, EOWIII, KOZHIKODE** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 26:** - **1 BIZZARRE MARKETING SYSTEMS PVT.LTD. 44/3188, A-9, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT(REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, ABDUL ARSHAD, S/O. SAYEED MUHAMMED, KANJIRIKKAPPALLY HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **2 BIZARRE GLOBAL MARKETING SYSTEMS LTD. (BGMS), 44/3188, A-9, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT(REP. BY ITS MD, ABDUL ARSHAD, S/O. SAYEED MUHAMMED, KANJIRIKKAPPALLIL HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **3 BIZARRE BUSINESS CORPORATION LTD. (BBC), 44/3188, A-9, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT(REP. BY ITS MD, ABDUL ARSHAD,S/O. SAYEED MUHAMMED, KANJIRIKKAPPALLY HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **4 BIZARRE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PVT. LTD. (BIB), 44/3188, A-9, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT(REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, ABDUL ARSHAD, S/O. SAYEED MUHAMMED, KANJIRIKKAPPALLY HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** - **5 ABDUL ARSHAD AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. SAYEED MOHAMMED, KANJIRIKKAPALLIL HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.** Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017 2 - **6 GOPINATHAN AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, NANDANAM, KOLAZHY P.O, THRISSUR.** - **7 GEORGE ALEXANDER AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. E.M. ALEXANDER, EDUVAMPARA,MUNDANDA, PURAMATTOM P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA.** - **8 P. KRISHNA DAYAL AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, CHANGARAMKANDATH HOUSE, PATTIYIL, ARIMPOOR P.O, THRISSUR.** - **9 KUNHI MUHAMMED AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KUNHALAN, POOVAMTHODI HOUSE, VATTALLOOR, KURUVA, MALAPPURAM.** - **10 MAYA K.P, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. PREMLAL, KONALIL HOUSE,T.V. PURAM, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.** - **11 NIJI K. MAJEED, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. ARSHAD, KADAVIMADOM HOUSE, SUJATHA ROAD, THOPPUMPADI, ERNAKULAM.** - **12 NOUSHAD S, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. SAYEED MUHAMMED, KANJIRIKKAPALLIL HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.** - **13 JISHAMOL BAIJU, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. BAIJU, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, CHARAMANGALAM, MAYITHARA P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.** - **14 BEENA K.E, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. GOPINATHAN, NANDANAM HOUSE, KOLAZHY P.O, THRISSUR.** - **15 ANEESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, SAIKRISHNA, MAMMIYOOR, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR.** - **16 NABEESA P.T AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. MOYTHEEN, PILAYTHODY HOUSE, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, SULTAN BATHERY, WAYANAD.** Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017 3 - **17 PRADEESH CHACKO AGED 39 YEARS, VELLAMATTATHIL HOUSE, NAGARAMCHAL, NOOLPUZHA, WAYANAD.** - **18 PRADEEP P.B AGED 34 YEARS, PONNAKATH HOUSE, NAMBIYARKUNNU, CHEERAL PO. WAYANAD.** - **19 BABURAJAN V.A AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. ACHUTHAN, CHIRAKKAMVAYAL HOUSE, CHEERAL P.O, WAYANAD.** - **20 SAJI KRISHNAN S/O. M.S. KRISHNAN, KILIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAKERY, IRULAM VILLAGE, WAYNAD.** - **21 ARUN B AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, ARUN NIVAS, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD.** - **22 PRADEESH P B AGED 32 YEARS, PONNAKATH HOUSE,NAMBIYARKUNNU, CHEERAL P.O, WAYANAD.** - **23 PRIYESH AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, ALIKUZHI HOUSE, NADUKKOLLY, THOMATTUCHAL AMSOM, WAYANAD.** - **24 MANOJ M C AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. CHERIYAN, MANALIL HOUSE, KOTTALA P.O, THRISSUR.** - **25 SASIDHARAN AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. VELU, KALLUNGAL HOUSE, AYYANTHOL P.O, THRISSUR.** - **26 RATHISH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. SADANANDAN, KALLADATHIL HOUSE, PUTHOOR P.O, KAYNOOR, THRISSUR.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRA KRISHNAN SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.V.VINAY** Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017 4 ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND WITNESSES:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.(CRIME NO.491/2011 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION. WAYANAD DISTRICT AND RE- REGISTERED AS CRIME NO. 182/2011 CBCID EOW -III, KOZHIKODE.)** **2 SUMAVALLI KOYIKKALETH HOUSE, NEAR SAGAR THEATRE, SULTHAN BATHERY POST, SULTHAN BATHERY ,WAYANAD KERALA - PIN - 673 592.** - **3 THANKAMANI P PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, NEAR AG CHURCH, SULTHAN BATHERY POST, CHUNGAM, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 673 592.** - **4 CHANDRIKA W/O. SREEDHARAN, KAITHAKKAL(H), KARAKKANDY,KUPPADY, WAYANAD,KERALA-673594** - **5 EBRAHIM M.K MADATHUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, NAIKETTY, NIRAPPAM, NAIKETTY P.O, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 673 592.** - **6 ABOOBACKAR V VELUTHENDIKKUNNU HOUSE, NIRAPPAM, NAIKETTY P.O, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 673 592.** - **7 RAHIYANATH PALAKUNNU HOUSE, MATHAMANGALAM,NAIKETTY POST, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 673 592.** - **8 HAJARA K.K KALARIKKANADY HOUSE, BICHARAM,NAIKETTY POST, MATHAMANGALAM WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 673 592.** - **9 BASHEER C CHERUVIL HOUSE, BEECHARATH, CHIRAKAMBAM, NAIKETTY P.O, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 673 592.** Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017 5 - **10 FATHIMA C.K ATTUKOLLI HOUSE, BICHARAM, NAIKETTY POST, MATHAMANGALAM, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 673 592.** - **11 ABDUL KAREEM K.K KALARIKKANDI HOUSE, CHIRAKAMBAM, NAYIKATTY PO, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN – 670 645** - **12 ASMA T.K KALARIKKANDI HOUSE, CHIRAKAMBAM, NAYIKETTY PO, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN – 670 645.** - **13 AHNAS K.K S/O. ABDUL KARIM, KALARIKKANDI HOUSE, CHIRAKAMBAM, NAYIKETTY PO,WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 670645** - **14 SREEJA K.N KARNAL HOUSE, NAYIKETTY POST, MATHAMANGALAM,SULTHAN BATHERY,WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 673 592.** **R2-R14 BY ADVS. SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SMT.P.PARVATHY SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN R1 BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER RAMESH CHAND(PP)** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017 6 ## **ORDER** ## **Dated this the 4th day of March 2020** Petitioners are accused in CC No.545/2013 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and 3 & 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. 2. The petitioners 1 to 4 are Companies represented by its Managing Director and petitioners 5 to 26 are all Directors of these Companies. Respondents 2 to 14 are the complainants who have been allegedly cheated. They have all appeared through counsel and filed affidavits to the effect that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioners and that they do not have any grievance against the petitioners. 3. Report has been submitted and the statement ## Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017 7 filed by the detective inspector, CBCID, stating that, there are about 63 cases in which final report have been filed against the petitioners and still many crimes are pending investigation in which final reports are yet to be filed. Complaints made by the party respondents herein has been settled. Certain cases against the petitioners have ended in acquittal and some other cases have been settled and disposed of. 4. The learned counsel relies on two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, [2012 KHC 4530]**_ which has been referred to in _**Gold Quest International**_ _**Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, [2014 KHC 4572]** ._ Similar offences are alleged against the accused Company named Gold Quest International Pvt. Ltd. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the disputes are substantially matrimonial in nature, or the civil property disputes with Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017 8 criminal facets, if the parties have entered into settlement, and it has become clear that there are no chances of conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C r/w Art.226 of the Constitution. There are certain exceptions pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C should not be exercise despite there being a settlement between the parties like in cases of rape, murder, robbery, dacoity, offences under the prevention of Corruption Act as well as Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The present case does not come within the category of cases excluded from the purview of Section 482 Cr.P.C. In Gian Singh's case also it has been stated that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purpose of quashing, particularly the offences arising Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017 9 from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. 5. The circumstances in the present case would indicate that, it is a commercial transaction which has allegedly ended in cheating of certain persons. True, there are large number of cases pending against the petitioners. But from the facts and circumstances, it is very clear that, certain cases have already been settled and the petitioners are making earnest attempt to settle all the disputes. In the present case, there are 13 complainants whose grievances had already been redressed by the petitioners. Under the circumstances, I find that going for trial also will be exercising futility and wastage Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017 **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** of time. Hence, the petition is allowed, and the entire proceedings as against the petitioners in CC No.545/2013 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta, stands quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the accused are discharged. ## **Sd/-** ## **ASHOK MENON** **JUDGE** SPK 11 Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE I** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.545/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA.** **ANNEXURE II AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.11.2014 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.II.** **ANNEXURE III AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.11.2014 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.III.** **ANNEXURE IV AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.11.2014 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.IV.** **ANNEXURE V AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.01.2017 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.V.** **ANNEXURE VI AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.11.2014 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.VI.** **ANNEXURE VII AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.11.2014 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.VII.** **ANNEXURE VIII AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.11.2014 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.VIII.** **ANNEXURE IX AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.11.2014 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.IX. ANNEXURE X AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.11.2014 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.X.** **ANNEXURE XI AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.11.2014 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.XI.** **ANNEXURE XII AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.11.2014 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.XII.** Crl.MC.No.941 OF 2017 12 **ANNEXURE XIII AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.08.2016 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.XIII.** **ANNEXURE XIV AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.11.2014 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.XIV.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL** _//TRUE COPY//_ _PA TO JUDGE_