High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-08-04Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Thomas Oommen v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 4441 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-08-04
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner, the sole accused in CC 907/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kozhikode, shall stand quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Thomas Oommen

Respondents

State of Kerala rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
NOUSHAD N.P
UNNIKRISHNAN
ABDUL RASHEED
UNNI V.K
MUJEEB RAHMAN
MOIDEEN
SUHARABI
MOHAMMED BASHEER

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.S.RAJEEV
• SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
• SRI.V.VINAY
• SRI.D.FEROZE

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.AMJAD ALI
• SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C

Case Synopsis & Summary

Thomas Oommen, the sole accused in CC 907/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kozhikode, challenged the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court. The petitioner faced charges under Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 17 of the Money Lenders Act and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Exorbitant Interest Act, arising from alleged money-lending activities that allegedly secured valuables and documents from respondents 2 to 9. The High Court was invited to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under CrPC 482 on the basis of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and related cases, contending that there is an amicable out-of-court settlement, with the parties’ affidavits asserting no continuing acrimony and a lack of public interest in pursuing the case. The respondents filed affidavits stating no objection to quashing the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor indicated no other heinous cases against the petitioner. After careful consideration, the court observed that the offence is personal in nature and that quashing would promote peace and prevent oppression or prejudice to the de facto complainants and the accused. It held that the settlement falls within the guidelines laid down in Gian Singh and related decisions, and accordingly allowed the petition, quashing all further proceedings in CC 907/2015.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCMoney Lenders Act: Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 17Exorbitant Interest Act: Sections 3 and 4Section 320 of CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers under CrPC 482 can be exercised de hors Section 320 CrPC for quashing in cases of compromise (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
Quashing based on amicable settlement where offences are personal in nature and no public interest is served by trial

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the settled nature of the dispute and the lack of public interest in pursuing the matter justify invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and subsequent cases, they argued that quashing the proceedings would prevent oppression and prejudice, conserve judicial resources, and enable the parties to live in peace. The personal nature of the alleged offence and the amicable settlement between the parties were emphasized as compelling reasons to exercise restraint and terminate the proceedings rather than continue a trial with remote prospects of conviction.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, through affidavits filed in the High Court, stated no objection to quashing the proceedings and highlighted that the parties had resolved their disputes amicably. The Public Prosecutor indicated there were no other heinous cases against the petitioner. The respondents urged the court to consider the interests of justice and public interest, but essentially did not oppose the relief sought given the stage and nature of the case and the absence of ongoing acrimony between the parties.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Positive	Cited as the leading authority enabling the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in the context of settlements/compromises.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited as part of the line of authority recognizing quashing on compromise where public interest does not require continued prosecution.
Yogendra Yadav and others v State of Jharkhand	2014 (9) SCC 653	Positive	Cited for the scope of inherent powers in cases involving settlement and lack of public interest.

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 Thomas Oommen v. State of Kerala 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/13TH SRAVANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 4441 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CC 907/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOZHIKODE. CRIME NO. 479/2014 OF CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. .........** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-------------------** **THOMAS OOMMEN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.UMMAN, ILLATHU ROSEBERG, KURUMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/VICTIM:** **---------------------------** **1.STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031,(CRIME NO 479/2014 OF CHEVAYOOR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT)** **2.NOUSHAD N.P, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.AHMED KOYA, KUTTIPPUNATHIL, CHELANOOR P.O,AMBALATHUKULANGARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 616. 3.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.PARANGODAN, NANNATT, NADUVATHINI MEETHAL, NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE - 673 616. 4.ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.PECHIAPPAN, VALIYAPARAMBATH MEATHIL, POKKUNNU P.O, OLAVANNA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE - 673 013.** **--2--** **--2--** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4441 of 2016 ()** ## **--------------------------** - **5.UNNI V.K, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.PANGAN, VELUTHEDAMKANDI, KACHERI, KOZHIKODE - 673 061.** - **6.MUJEEB RAHMAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KOYA, THAZHATHIL PARAMB, NALLALAM P.O, CHERUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE - 673 027.** - **7.MOIDEEN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.MOOSAKOYA, METHEDATHU VEEDU, MEYANADU P.O,CHELAVOOR, KOZHIKODE - 673 571.** - **8.SUHARABI, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED, THAZHATH VEETTIL, PATTARTHODIKAPPAKKAL, KALLAI P.O, PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 003.** - **9.MOHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA KOYA, JAMSHRA MANZIL, NADAKKAVU P.O, VELLAYIL, KECHERI, KOZHIKODE - 673 011.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R2 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4441 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **==> picture [414 x 525] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> ||| |---|---| |------------------------| |ANNEXURE I : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER| |BY THE AUTHORITIES FOR MONEY LENDING.| |ANNEXURE II : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH| |WITNESS SCHEDULE IN CRIME NO 479/2014 WHICH IS| |NOW PENDING AS CC NO. 907/2015 ON THE FILE OF| |THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,| |KOZHIKODE.| |ANNEXURE III : AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO 2| |DATED 17-06-2016.| |ANNEXURE IV : AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.3| |DATED 17-06-2016.| |ANNEXURE V : AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.4| |DATED 17-06-2016.| |ANNEXURE VI : AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.5| |DATED 17-06-2016.| |ANNEXURE VII : AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.7| |DATED 17-06-2016.| |ANNEXURE VIII : AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.7| |DATED 17-06-2016.| |ANNEXURE IX : AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.8| |DATED 17-06-2016.| |ANNEXURE X : AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.9| |DATED 17-06-2016.| |RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:|NIL| |------------------------| |//TRUE COPY//| |P.S. TO JUDGE| **----- End of picture text -----**<br> **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.4441 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of August, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.907 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-I, Kozhikode. He has been charged for having committed offence punishable under sections 3, 4 read with section 17 of the Money Lenders Act and also under section 3 read with section 4 of Exorbitant Interest Act. The respondents 2 to 9 are the victims. - 2.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466)** and **Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand** Crl.M.C.4441/2016 2 (2014 (9) SCC 653 ) with a prayer to quash the above proceeding. - 3.The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked _de hors_ section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings. - 4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The respondents 2 to 9 have filed separate affidavits wherein they assert that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings. - 5.The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner in course of 3 Crl.M.C.4441/2016 the illegal money lending activity conducted by him had obtained valuable securities and other documents from respondents 2 to 9 in this petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was conducting a valid money lending business, as evidenced by Annexure-I. It is also submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the party respondents. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that no other cases of heinous nature are reported against the petitioner. - 7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. - 8.The respondents 2 to 9 have sworn to separate affidavits in which they assert that they have no objection in allowing the petition and in quashing the proceedings as all the disputes between the parties have been resolved Crl.M.C.4441/2016 4 and the parties are living in peace and harmony. 9. It appears to me that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the _de facto_ complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. - 10.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Gian Singh ( Supra ) and the other cases referred to above. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further Crl.M.C.4441/2016 5 proceedings against the petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.907 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-I, Kozhikode, shall stand quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps