High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAllowed

CRL.MC No.3230 of 2021

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO.3230 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Judgment Date
2023-06-07
Court Decision / Holding
The Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, quashed Annexure-I final report and the proceedings in C.C.No.660/2018 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta, and thereby ended the prosecution against the petitioners.
Final Disposition
Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • RMP INFO TEC PVT. LTD COMPANY REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DAVAL CHANDAN, APPOLO, DUBAI PLAZA BUILDING, MAHALINGAPURAM ROAD, CHENNAI-34
  • DAVAL CHANDAN
  • PRVEEN KUMAR CHANDAN
  • DILEEP KUMAR CHANDAN
  • RAJESH KUMAR CHANDAN
  • DAYALAN
  • SAJI PARAKKAL
  • V.SREENIVASAN
  • V.R.SREENIVASAN
  • JAMES MATHEW
  • JOSAPH MATHEW
  • RENNY VARGHESE
  • ABHILASH THOMAS
  • NABEEL MUHAMMED
  • MUBEEL MUHAMMED
  • C.V.SUNIL KUMAR
  • JOSEPH SEBASTIAN
  • STEEPHAN T.V.
  • K.B.SUNIL BABU
  • P.SUNIL KUMAR
  • ANTHONICHAN
  • MATHEWS JOSEPH
  • K.J.ANTONY @ ANTONY BAVA
  • SREEJITH NAIRN @ SREEJITH P.K.
  • BENNY E.
  • ANEESH VARGHESE
  • BIJUMAMMAN
  • K.J.MATHEW
  • ARCHITH REMESH
  • SREEJITH S.R.
  • SAJEEV KALPETTA @SAJEEV V.P.
  • REJI A.L.
  • MURUKAN K.K.
  • SAJI MADAKKARA

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA
  • THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR CBCID, EOW -III, KOZHIKODE
  • JOSE
  • JILSON
  • BENNY K.G.
  • SURESH K.K
  • SAJI P.M.
  • RAJMIOHAN K.P.
  • ANILKUMAR P.S.
  • ROBY
  • BABY K.J.
  • MATHAI
  • SHEEJA AUGUSTHI
  • VIJAYAKUMARI

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
  • • P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
  • • K.SUDHINKUMAR
  • • S.K.ADHITHYAN
  • • SABU PULLAN
  • • GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN

Counsels for Respondents

  • • VIPIN NARAYAN (Public Prosecutor)
  • • K.K.RAJEEV

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case arises in CRL.MC No.3230 of 2021 concerning accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 to 23 in C.C. No. 660/2018 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta, Wayanad. The matter concerns Crime No. 303/2011 (Pulpalli Police) later re-registered as CBCID EOW-III Case No. 845/CR/EOW III/KKD/11, involving alleged offences under sections 420, 120(b) r/w 34 IPC and under sections 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The petition seeks quashing of all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-I final report, arguing that the dispute is private and has been settled with affidavits by defacto complainants stating they have no grievance against the petitioners. The respondents’ counsel confirm the affidavits and note prior orders quashing prosecutions in similar circumstances. The learned judge observes the private nature of the dispute, and, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab, invokes Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-I and the proceedings. The Court finally allows the Crl.M.C., quashing the final report and proceedings in C.C. No. 660/2018, thereby ending the criminal action against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 420IPC 120(b)IPC 34Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (Sections 4, 5, 6)Cr.P.C. 482

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute is private and has been resolved; affidavits from the defacto complainants (Annexure II-XIII) state no grievance against the petitioners and seek quashing of proceedings. Relying on earlier orders where private settlements led to quashing, the petitioners urge invocation of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-I final report and related proceedings in C.C. No. 660/2018. They rely on the Supreme Court guidance exemplified by Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab and Another to justify quashing when substantive disputes are personal and settled.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, through the Public Prosecutor and counsel for defacto complainants (R3-R14), support the affidavits and settlement, confirming no grievance remains. They argue that the private nature of the matter and the absence of continuing grievances justify exercising 482 Cr.P.C. powers to quash the ongoing prosecution, consistent with earlier Supreme Court precedents and the court’s own precedent in similar matters.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012 (4) KLT 108PositiveCited to justify invoking 482 Cr.P.C. where private disputes are settled and prosecution can be quashed.

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 CRL.MC No.3230 of 2021 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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 3230 OF 2021 ``` ``` [AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.660/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE ``` ``` CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA, WAYANAD] ``` ## `PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6 & 9 TO 23:` - `1 RMP INFO TEC PVT. LTD COMPANY REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DAVAL CHANDAN, APPOLO, DUBAI PLAZA BUILDING, MAHALINGAPURAM ROAD, CHENNAI-34` - `2 DAVAL CHANDAN AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.JAWAHARMAL CHANDRAN, H.NO.25, (OLD NO.12-1), PERUMALMUTHALI STREET, ROYALPETTA, CHENNAI14.` - `3 PRVEEN KUMAR CHANDAN AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.JAWAHARMAL CHANDRAN, H.NO.25, (OLD NO.12-1), PERUMALMUTHALI STREET, ROYALPETTA, CHENNAI14.` - `4 DILEEP KUMAR CHANDAN AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.JAWAHARMAL CHANDRAN, H.NO.25, (OLD NO.12-1), PERUMALMUTHALI STREET, ROYALPETTA, CHENNAI14.` - `5 RAJESH KUMAR CHANDAN AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.JAWAHARMAL CHANDRAN, H.NO.25, (OLD NO.12-1), PERUMALMUTHALI STREET, ROYALPETTA, CHENNAI14.` - `6 DAYALAN AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.THUKKURAMAN, PLOT NO.57-1/KGR NAGAR, KATTUPAKKAM P.O., THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, CHENNAI 56` - `7 SAJI PARAKKAL AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.P.M. ANTONY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR` - `8 V.SREENIVASAN AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.NANU NAIR, VALLUR HOUSE, MULAYAM, AYYAPPANKAVE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `9 V.R.SREENIVASAN AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.V.K.RAMADEVAN, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARIMBOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `10 JAMES MATHEW AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, SNEHASANDRAM, KANNORA P.O., PEECHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `11 JOSAPH MATHEW AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.E.M. MATHEW, ELAVUTHARAPPIL HOUSE, PEECHI, KANNARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.` CRL.MC No.3230 of 2021 2 ``` 12RENNY VARGHESE AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.VARGHEES, CHETTIYAMKUDIYIL HOUSE, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL NAGAR, VADAKKUMCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 13ABHILASH THOMAS AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, KANAKKANAD HOUSE, MULAMKAVU P.O., SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 14NABEEL MUHAMMED AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.P.A.MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, ORCHID MEDOWS, D15, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 15MUBEEL MUHAMMED AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.P.A.MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, ORCHID MEDOWS, D15, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 16C.V.SUNIL KUMAR AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHEN, CHERAYATH HOUSE, CHETTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR 17JOSEPH SEBASTIAN AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, PANDARAVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHETTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 18STEEPHAN T.V. AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.VAREETH, THALAKKOTTOOR HOUSE, KECHERY P.O., THRISSUR 19K.B.SUNIL BABU AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, KUNNEL HOUSE, KUMBALANGI SOUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM. 20P.SUNIL KUMAR AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.APPU NAIR@NANU NAIR, POTTUNAD HOUSE, AYYAPPANKAVU, MULAYAM, THRISSUR 21ANTHONICHAN AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.K.J. VARGHESE, KANNAMPUZHAVEEDU, AVALKUNDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 22MATHEWS JOSEPH AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PEECHATT HOUSE, OONNUMKAL, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 23K.J.ANTONY @ ANTONY BAVA AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.K.V.JOHN, KUMBALANGI, SOUTH KUMBALANGI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 24SREEJITH NAIRN @ SREEJITH P.K. AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.KUNJANANTHAN NAIR, PUTTAN VEEDU, KARANI P.O., WAYANAD. 25BENNY E. AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.ESTHAQU, ASHLY VILLA, KAPPAKAD, PUNNAPARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 26ANEESH VARGHESE AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, THEKKEMATTATHIL VEEDU, CHETTAPPALAM P.O., PULPALLY,WAYANADU DISTRICT. 27BIJUMAMMAN AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.P.M.MAMMAN, PAKKALLIL HOUSE, RAMANGIRI P.O., VEZAPPRA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 28K.J.MATHEW, ``` CRL.MC No.3230 of 2021 3 ``` AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, CHALICHIRA, ELANJITHANAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 29ARCHITH REMESH @ ARCHITH AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.REMESH, NELLURAD HOUSE, PANAMARAM P.O., WAYANAD 30SREEJITH S.R. AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, SAKTHEESWARATH HOUSE, KARANI P.O., WAYANAD 31SAJEEV KALPETTA @SAJEEV V.P. AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.VENUGOPAL, VINEETH HOUSE, PINAMKODE ROAD, KALPETTA, WAYANAD 32REJI A.L. AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LONAPPAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHENKUNNU P.O., BATHERY, WAYANAD 33MURUKAN K.K. AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, NISHAGANDHI VEEDU, VAYALALAM TEMPLE GATE, KODIYERI P.O., KANNUR 34SAJI MADAKKARA @ SAJI THOMAS AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, PANACHUMOOTTIL HOUSE, MADAKKARA, NENMENI, WAYANAD, NOW RESIDING AT MAMMUNNIPADY, EANGAPPUZHA, WAYANAD 35SIVAKUMAR PANDARAPARAMBIL AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.DARMAJAN, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARAYAMUTTAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) K.SUDHINKUMAR S.K.ADHITHYAN SABU PULLAN GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/STATE,COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031 2THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR CBCID, EOW -III, KOZHIKODE 673 001 3JOSE AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KUTTIYAMKONATH HOUSE, PULPALLY P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 579 4JILSON AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PARAYIL HOUSE, ADIKOLLI, PULPALLY P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 579 5BENNY K.G. AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, KUTTIARAYIL HOUSE, SASIMALA, PULPALLI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 579 ``` CRL.MC No.3230 of 2021 4 |`6`|`SURESH K.K`| |---|---| ||`AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAN, KOYIKATTIL HOUSE,`| ||`PULPALLI., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 579`| |`7`|`SAJI P.M.`| ||`AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,`| ||`PULPALLI P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 579`| |`8`|`RAJMIOHAN K.P.`| ||`AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.PARAGODAN, KOTTILAGIL HOUSE,`| ||`PULPALLI P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 579`| |`9`|`ANILKUMAR P.S.`| ||`AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SASI, PALLIKARAKUDI HOUSE,`| ||`PULPALLI P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 579`| |`10`|`ROBY`| ||`AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, MAYILADAMPARA HOUSE,`| ||`UDAYAKKAVALA, CHETTAPALAM P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN`| ||`673 579`| |`11`|`BABY K.J.`| ||`AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, ARIKKATTE HOUSE, PULPALLI`| ||`P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 579`| |`12`|`MATHAI`| ||`AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.PAILI, PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE,`| ||`PULPALLI P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 579`| |`13`|`SHEEJA AUGUSTHI`| ||`AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.AGUSTHI, JAMAKKARA HOUSE, PULPALLI`| ||`P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 579`| |`14`|`VIJAYAKUMARI`| ||`AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.GOPI, CHIRAKKATT VEEDU, PULPALLI`| ||`P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 579`| ||`BY ADVS.`| ||`R1 BY ADV.VIPIN NARAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR`| ||`R3 TO R14 BY ADV. K.K.RAJEEV`| ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 6.6.2023 THE COURT ON 7.6.2023 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` CRL.MC No.3230 of 2021 5 ## `O R D E R` ``` The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6,9 to 23, 26 to 39 in C.C.No. 660/2018 on the files of ``` ``` the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta, Wayanad. Accused Nos.7,8,24 and 25 are no more. The said calendar case arises from Crime No.303/2011 of Pulpalli Police Station, the ``` ``` investigation of which was later transferred to CBCID and the said crime was re-registered as Crime No.845/CR/EOW III/KKD/11. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 420,120(b) r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also under sections 4,5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme ``` ``` (Banning)Act, 1978. The respondents 3 to 14 are ``` ``` the defacto complainants in the said crime. ``` ``` 2.The allegation against the petitioners is that, during the year, 2011, accused persons approached the victims and persuaded them to join RMP Network Marketing Company. The parties ``` CRL.MC No.3230 of 2021 6 ``` were informed that if they make payment to the ``` ``` company to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/- for becoming as members to the Company, they will ``` ``` get good returns on selling their products. ``` ``` Accordingly, various amounts were collected by ``` ``` the Company. But later, the Company failed to give commission as promised by the petitioners and other accused persons. Crime was registered in such circumstances and after completing the ``` ``` investigation, Annexure-I final report was submitted. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing ``` ``` all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-I. ``` ``` 3.Heard Sri.P.Mohandas, the learned ``` ``` counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.K.K.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 14. ``` ``` 4.The prayer to quash the proceedings are sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties are settled. To substantiate ``` CRL.MC No.3230 of 2021 7 ``` the aforesaid settlement, affidavits sworn by the respondents 3 to 14 which are produced as Annexure-II to Annexure-XIII were produced. From the perusal of the aforesaid affidavits, it is evident that all the party respondents herein have clearly conveyed that they do not have any grievance against the accused persons and further proceedings need not be continued against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 14 also confirms the aforesaid settlement and submits that the aforesaid affidavits were sworn by the respective respondents. This Court as per Annexures-XIV and XV orders, at the instance of some other victims, quashed the prosecution initiated against the petitioners herein on the basis of settlement. From the nature of ``` ``` allegations raised, I find that the dispute is basically private in nature and since the affected parties have sworn affidavits ``` CRL.MC No.3230 of 2021 8 ``` highlighting their non objection in quashing the ``` ``` proceedings against the petitioners, there is no meaning in continuing the proceedings as against the petitioners herein. In such circumstances, by relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012 (4) KLT 108], I deem it appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.PC. ``` ``` In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. ``` ``` Annexure-I final report submitted by the CBCID, Economic Offices Wing-II, Kozhikode including the proceedings in C.C.No.660/2018 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta, Wayanad are hereby quashed. ``` ## `Sd/-` ``` pkk ``` ``` ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` CRL.MC No.3230 of 2021 9 ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3230/2021` ``` PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES ``` |`Annexure I`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT`| |---|---| ||`NO.18/2018 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`| ||`DATED 12.6.2018 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL`| ||`MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KALAPETTA AS`| ||`C.C.NO.660/2018`| |`Annexure II`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED`| ||`9.1.2021`| |`Annexure III`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED`| ||`10.4.2017`| |`Annexure IV`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED`| ||`10.4.2017`| |`Annexure V`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED`| ||`10.4.2017`| |`Annexure VI`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED`| ||`10.4.2017`| |`Annexure VII`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED`| ||`10.4.2017`| |`Annexure VIII`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED`| ||`11.4.2017`| |`Annexure IX`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT`| ||`DATED 2.1.2011`| |`Annexure X`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT`| ||`DATED 11.4.2017`| |`Annexure XI`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT`| ||`DATED 11.4.2017`| |`Annexure XII`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 13TH RESPONDENT`| ||`DATED 10.4.2017`| |`Annexure XIII`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 14TH RESPONDENT`| ||`DATED 9.1.2021`| |`Annexure XIV`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN`| ||`CRL.M.C.NO.266/2020 DATED 18.9.2020`| |`ANNEXURE XV`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC`| ||`NO.1841/2021 DATED 17.5.2021`|