Prakash Bhat K. v State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/21ST ASWINA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 3924 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CC 336/2013 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD. CRIME NO.535/2010 OF KUMBALA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.** **..........** **PETITIONER:** **-----------** **PRAKASH BHAT. K., AGED 49, S/O. ANANTHA BHAT, MALLIKA QUARTERS, NEAR MALLIKA ENTERPRISES, KUMBALA, KOIDPADY VILLAGE, KUMBALA P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT NEAR KANATHATT TEMPLE, PALLIKKARA, NEELESWARAM, NEELESWARAM VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSPECTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBALA POLICE STATION, KUMBALA - 677 326.** **3. THE NORTH AMALABAR GRAMINE BANK, (KERALA GRAMINE BANK), PUTHIKE BRANCH, REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER - 671 301.** - **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI, SC** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3924 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **==> picture [408 x 311] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> ||| |---|---| |PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:| |------------------------| |ANNEXURE 1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE| |3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL| |MAGISTRATE COURT KASARAGOD.| |ANNEXURE 2 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT| |IN CRIME NO.535/2010.| |ANNEXURE 3 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.| |ANNEXURE 4 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS| |DATED 13.06.2015 OF THE ADALATH.| |ANNEXURE 5 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE| |3RD RESPONDENT.| |RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:|NIL| |------------------------| |//TRUE COPY//| |P.S. TO JUDGE| **----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.3924 of 2016** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for brevity). - 2.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.336 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 406, 416, 420, 421, 422 and 465 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner had availed a housing loan to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- from the North Malabar Gramin Bank, Puthige Branch by producing forged documents and thus committed the offence. - 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits Crl.M.C.3924/2016 2 that while the proceedings were pending before the learned Magistrate, the parties have arrived at a compromise and refers to Annexure-4 order of the learned Magistrate dated 13.6.2015. The said order reads as follows: - _“Petitioner present. De facto complainant present. Discussed. Parties arrived at a compromise and agreed to settle the matter for Rs.6,00,000/(Rupees Six Lakhs only) on condition that the accused shall pay the said amount to the de facto complainant bank on or before 12.12.2015. On satisfaction the de facto complainant shall withdraw the case. On failure by the accused for payment of the amount, the de facto complainant shall be at liberty to proceed with the case.”_ - 5.According to the learned counsel in terms of Annexure-4, the whole amount was remitted before the bank. He relies on Annexure-5 series receipts and prays that in view of the above, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner may not be permitted to continue any further. Relying on the judgment of Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) it is contended that any case having an overwhelming and predominatingly Crl.M.C.3924/2016 3 civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions can be quashed by this Court invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code taking note of the settlement arrived at between the parties. - 6.The learned counsel appearing for then 3[rd] respondent has admitted that the amount has been received by the bank and that they stand by the word given before the learned Magistrate that they do not intend to proceed as against the petitioner any further. However, the learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the decision of the Apex Court in **State represented by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch v. R.Vasanthi Stanley and Another** [2016(1) SCC 376] and contended that the Apex Court has cautioned that this Court should be averse in quashing criminal proceedings involving economic offences and it was further held that the fact that the accused has settled the amount with the bank is not a Crl.M.C.3924/2016 4 sufficient enough reason to quash the proceedings. - 7.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. - 8.I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials on record. It is manifest from Annexure-4 that the parties have arrived at a compromise and in terms of the same, the disputes have been settled. The 3[rd] respondent has also undertaken before the learned Magistrate that in the event of the petitioner remitting the amount on or before 12.12.2015, the de facto complainant shall withdraw the case. Admittedly the amount was paid in terms of Annexure-4. - 9.A Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in **CBI, ACB,** Crl.M.C.3924/2016 5 ## **Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain and Others** [2014 (5) SCC 364] has held in paragraph No.11 of the judgment as follows: 10.“11.In the present case, having regard to the fact that the liability to make good the monetary loss suffered by the bank had been mutually settled between the parties and the accused had accepted the liability in this regard, the High Court had thought it fit to invoke its power under S.482 CrPC. We do not see how such exercise of power can be faulted or held to be erroneous. S.482 of the Code inheres in the High Court the power to make such order as may be considered necessary to, inter alia, prevent the abuse of the process of law or to serve the ends of justice. While it will be wholly unnecessary to revert or refer to the settled position in law with regard to the contours of the power available under S.482 CrPC it must be remembered that continuance of a criminal proceeding which is likely to become oppressive or may partake the character of a lame prosecution would be good ground to invoke the extraordinary power under S.482 CrPC.” 11.The facts of the instant case is different from the facts in **Vasanthi Stanley** (supra). In that case, several banks Crl.M.C.3924/2016 6 were defrauded in a systemic manner by the accused and it was in the said circumstances that it was held that the offence was a well planned one and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. In the facts of the instant case, I am persuaded to follow the judgment of the Apex Court in **CBI, ACB, Mumbai** (supra) rendered by a Bench of Three Judges. 12.Having considered the submissions and after going through the materials on record, it does not appear to me that the offence committed by the petitioners can be regarded as grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. More over, when the party respondents have settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. Crl.M.C.3924/2016 7 13.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. 14.In the result this petition will stand allowed. All further proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.336 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps