Crl.M.C.No.1866 of 2012 (C)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T. R. Ramachandran Nair
Judgment Date: 2013-01-03
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. allowed; all further proceedings in C.C. No.1385/2010 are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed (crl. petition allowed); no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M. P. Ramnath
K. S. Vasudevan Namboothiri

Respondents

State of Kerala
R. Muraleekrishnan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. M. Firoz

Counsels for Respondents

• K. N. Rajani

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from a civil dispute concerning the governance of a private temple at Vennala, Ernakulam, where a Receiver appointed by the District Court operated the Devaswom bank account. The second respondent (a public prosecutor/receiver) and the Devaswom matter led to C.C. No. 1385/2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, and related IA/RFA proceedings culminating in a common order (Annexure A2) transferring management back to the petitioners and later orders restricting account activity (Annexures A3, A4). The F.I.R. in Crime No. 848/2010 (annexed as A8) and the bail orders (A9) formed the criminal backdrop. The civil dispute was resolved by a compromise recorded as Annexure A11, with Annexure A10 noting that the compromise petition would form part of the decree. The petitioners contended that, as the civil matter has been settled and the compromise forms part of the decree, continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no purpose and should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The respondents supported the settlement's effect. The court held that the compromise binds the parties and that the settled status justifies quashing under 482 CrPC, citing B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh (SC) for authority, and ultimately quashed CC 1385/2010 with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482Indian Penal Code, Section 120-BIndian Penal Code, Section 406Indian Penal Code, Section 420

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the civil dispute over temple governance was resolved by a compromise, which forms part of the decree (Annexure A10/A11). The compromise requires the withdrawal of the criminal complaint (Crime No. 848/2010) and binds the parties, making further criminal proceedings unnecessary. They urged quashing under Section 482 CrPC, citing the settled state of affairs and guidance from Supreme Court authorities such as B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that since the civil dispute has been settled and the compromise forms part of the decree, the criminal proceedings are an offshoot of the civil matter and should be quashed under 482 CrPC; the compromise governs the relationship between the parties and the Bank, and the terms binding the parties justify termination of the criminal process.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another	2003 (2) KLT 1062 - SC	Positive	Cited in support of invoking inherent powers under 482 CrPC to quash proceedings where civil disputes have been resolved and compromise binds the parties.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 - SC	Positive	Cited for authority on quashing criminal proceedings in light of settled disputes and accompanying compromise.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** ## **THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013/13TH POUSHA 1934** **Crl.MC.No. 1866 of 2012 (C)** **-------------------------CMP.1217/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I,ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.772/2010 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I, VACATION JUDGE) ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER(S)/A2 & A3:** **----------------------** **1. ADV. M.P. RAMNATH S/O. LATE M.R. PARAMESWARAN NATHAMS HOUSE CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN-682 035.** **2. K.S. VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O. SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI KANNANATTU MANA VENNALA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-682 028.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT(S):** **------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. R. MURALEEKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE, RECEIVER, THAIKKATTU DEWASWOM VENNALA, COCHIN, PIN-682 028 AND D.D. TEX WORLD MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682 035.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H. JASMINE R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.RAJANI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 1866 of 2012 (C)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** |**ANX.A1:**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-12-2009 IN I.A. NO.**| |---|---| ||**6616/2009 IN OS NO. 4/2008 OF THE HON'BLE 2ND ADDITIONAL**| ||**DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.**| |**ANX.A2:**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 19-3-2010 IN IA**| ||**NOS. 975, 1140 AND 1108 OF 2010 IN RFA 158 OF 2010 OF THIS**| ||**HON'BLE COURT.**| |**ANX.A3:**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-3-2010 IN IA NO.**| ||**1282/2010 IN RFA 158/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.**| |**ANX.A4:**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT DATED 30-3-2010**| ||**OF THYKKATTU DEVASWOM WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, PALARIVATTOM**| ||**BRANCH HAVING SB A/C NO. 617302010000104, AS ISSUED TO THE**| ||**2ND PETITIONER.**| |**ANX.A5:**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF I.A. NO. 1381/2010 IN RFA 158/2010**| |**ANX.A6:**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-5-2010 IN THE**| ||**ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AS**| ||**CRIMINAL M.C. 772/2010 SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.**| |**ANX.A7:**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 10-5-2010 IN THE ANTICIPATORY**| ||**BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AS CRIMINAL**| ||**M.C. 771/2010 SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.**| |**ANX.A8:**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.**| ||**848 OF THE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION DATED 11-5-2010.**| |**ANX.A9:**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED 13-5-2010 IN CMA NO.**| ||**1217/2010 IN CR. 848/2010 OF PALARIVATTOM P.S. ISSUED BY THE**| ||**COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,**| ||**ERNAKULAM TO PETITIONER 1 & 2 HEREIN.**| |**ANX.A10:**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-3-2012 IN RFA**| ||**158/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.**| |**ANX.A11:**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION IA 895/2012 IN RFA**| ||**158/2010, MADE PART OF ANNEXURE A10 JUDGMENT.**| |**ANX.A12:**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC 1385/2010 JUDICIAL**| ||**FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ERNAKULAM.**| |**ANX.A13:**|**THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14-5-2012 GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/**| ||**DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.**| |**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:**<br> **NIL**|| **/TRUE COPY/** ## **VPV** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1866 of 2012** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2013** ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are respectively the second and third accused in C.C. No.1385/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. The first accused is the Manager of Union Bank of India, Palarivattom Branch. 2. The defacto complainant is the second respondent herein. the second respondent is the Advocate Receiver appointed by the District Court, Ernakulam as per order in I.A. No.6616/2009 in O.S. No.4/2008, The third accused is the plaintiff in the said suit and the first petitioner is the counsel appearing for the second respondent. The suit was mainly one for a decree of declaration against the Cochin Devaswom Board that it has no territorial jurisdiction to pass any orders in the matter of governance of his private family Temple situated at Vennala. The contention mainly was that it was part of Travancore State and not within Cochin State. Annexure A1 is the copy of the order appointing the Advocate Receiver. 3. The criminal complaint is only an off shoot of the proceedings subsequent to the appointment of the Advocate Receiver. The Receiver, Crl.M.C.No.1866/12 -2- after taking charge of the Temple, was operating an account in the name of the Devaswom, in the Union Bank of India, Palarivattom Branch. Challenging the order appointing the Receiver R.F.A. No.158/2010 was filed by the second petitioner through the first petitioner as his counsel. This Court passed a common order in I.A. Nos.975,1140 and 1108 of 2010 as per Annexure A2. By the said interim order, the Receiver was removed with a direction to return all documents, money, gold and other articles and hand over management of the Temple and its properties to the second petitioner on production of a copy of the order. The other applications were dismissed by the very same common order. A later order was passed as per Annexure A3 in I.A. No.1282/2010 in R.F.A. No.158/2010 directing the Receiver not to open the locker and not to deposit or withdrawn any amount from the account for a period of one week. After these two orders were passed, the second petitioner approached the Bank for an account statement on 30.3.2010 which was issued as per Annexure A4. He approached the Bank along with a memo signed by the first petitioner. The bank account statement was produced along with I.A. No.1381/2010 in R.F.A. No.158/2010. In fact, in the meanwhile, the second defendant in the suit who is the second respondent in R.F.A.No.158/2010, challenged Annexure Crl.M.C.No.1866/12 -3- A2 order removing the Receiver, before the Apex Court in SLP Nos.96919692 of 2010 and an order of status-quo was passed initially and later an order of stay was also issued and the Receiver thus continued. Alleging that the bank account details of the Devaswm was given by the Manager of the bank which was later produced along with I.A. No.1381/2010 which is in violation of the banking statutes, the second respondent filed a complaint. The offences alleged therein are under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 I.P.C. True copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.848/2010 is produced as Annexure A8. The petitioners obtained bail as per Annexure A9 order. Later, the civil dispute was settled by the mediation of Justice K.T. Thomas, retired Judge of the Apex Court and R.F.A. No.158/2010 was disposed of by Annexure A10 judgment. Annexure A11 is the compromise petition filed as I.A.No.895/2012 in the said appeal. The compromise petition is signed by the second respondent herein, the Receiver of the court and one of the terms is regarding the withdrawal of the complaint upon which Annexure A8 FIR is registered. Annexure A12 is the final report in the matter. The petitioners have raised various contentions in this Crl.M.C. with regard to the sustainability of the initiation of criminal proceedings, as it is pointed out that the bank account statement is with respect to the Temple and the Crl.M.C.No.1866/12 -4- affairs of which was the subject matter of civil suit and also in the appeal before this Court and therefore no offence is made out. It is also contended that the first petitioner is arrayed merely as an accused for the reason that he was appearing for the third accused and for filing a petition, viz. Annexure A5 producing Annexure A4 bank account statement. It is also alleged that the Receiver has not obtained any sanction of the court for initiating the criminal action. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the second respondent that the entire disputes have been settled and therefore the complaint has lost its significance now and the proceedings are liable to be quashed also. It is submitted that one of the terms of Annexure A11 compromise petition, viz. para 16 refers to the closing of the present complaint. The said para reads as follows: “16. The receiver hereby withdraws complaint filed by him against the plaintiff, his counsel and Bank manager, Union Bank of India, Palarivattom Branch, in connection with the issuance of the details of the Devaswom accounts, run by receiver, whereupon crime No.848/2010 of Palarivattom Police Station is registered Crl.M.C.No.1866/12 -5- and whereupon proceedings are pending before the Judicial 1[st] Class Magistrates Court, Ernakulam as C.C. No.1385/2010 and the accused therein may move for discharging them from the above case or quashing the same by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.” A reading of para 18 of Annexure A10 judgment shows that the suit is decreed and sub para (e) therein states that “ the compromise petition (I.A.No.895 of 2012) shall form part of the decree.” In the light of the above also, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and second respondent are right in submitting that there is no purpose in proceeding with the criminal case. 6. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, I am also of the considered view that as the compromise petition has been made part of the decree, all the conditions therein will govern and bind the parties, as far as the criminal complaint herein is concerned. 7. It is also clear that the complaint was filed by the second respondent during the pendency of the civil appeal between the parties. This is only an off shoot of the civil dispute and the first petitioner was only appearing for the second petitioner as his counsel before this Court. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **B.S. Joshi and others v. State** Crl.M.C.No.1866/12 -6- **of Haryana and another** (2003 (2) KLT 1062 - SC) and **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 - SC), this is a fit case wherein this Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. No.1385/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam will stand quashed. N costs. ## **(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)** ## **kav/**