High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCRL.MC Nos. 248/2021 & 1110/2021 allowed; Annex...

Venugopalan K.N. and Viji.E.C. v. State of Kerala and HDFC Bank; Alex K. Ipe and Abdul Salam.M.H. v. State of Kerala and HDFC Bank

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 248 OF 2021; CRL.MC NO. 1110 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date
2022-07-06
Court Decision / Holding
CRL.MC Nos. 248/2021 and 1110/2021 are allowed. Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No. 655/2011 of Palarivattom Police Station and all further proceedings in CC No.1150/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court IX, Ernakulam as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Final Disposition
CRL.MC Nos. 248/2021 & 1110/2021 allowed; Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No. 655/2011 and all further proceedings in C.C.1150/2017 against the petitioners are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Venugopalan K.N.
  • Viji.E.C.
  • Alex K. Ipe
  • Abdul Salam.M.H.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Station House Officer, Palarivattom Police Station
  • HDFC Bank represented by its Assistant Vice President, P. Ramesh Kumar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • J. Ramkumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • M.A. Joseph Manavalan
  • • Seena C – Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two criminal miscellaneous petitions (CRL.MC nos. 248 of 2021 and 1110 of 2021) were filed challenging the proceedings in Crime No. 655/2011 of Palarivattom Police Station and connected CC No. 1150/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court IX, Ernakulam. The petitions, filed by accused nos. 1–2 in the first petition and accused nos. 3 and 5 in the second, allege that the parties have settled their dispute and that the defacto complainant bank has no subsisting grievance. The prosecution alleges that the accused conspired to cheat the bank by fabricating a sale deed and mortgaging it, under IPC sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476 and 120(b) read with 34, and the final report has been submitted in Crime No. 655/2011. Annexures A1 and A2 accompany the record, with Annexure A3 sworn by the 3rd respondent stating no objection to quashing. The SHO confirms the veracity of the settlement. The court notes that the dispute is essentially private and that continued prosecution would be unlikely to succeed in view of the settlement. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, the court holds that it has jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, CRL.MC Nos. 248/2021 and 1110/2021 are allowed, quashing the Final Report and all further proceedings in CC No. 1150/2017 against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476 and 120B read with 34CrPC section 482

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012(4) KLT 108) – doctrine that private settlements may justify quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC where continuation of prosecution would not serve ends of justice.
  • Ends of justice doctrine underpinning quashing due to private settlement and lack of public interest in continuing prosecution.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the dispute is private and has been settled; Annexure A3 shows the defacto complainant’s consent and lack of subsisting grievance, with the SHO confirming the settlement. They urged quashing under Section 482 CrPC in light of the settled private dispute and the Gian Singh proposition that such cases may be quashed when continued prosecution is not in the ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and defacto complainant bank argued that the alleged offences involve cheating and forging a sale deed, which would ordinarily warrant trial; however, given the private nature of the dispute and the verified settlement, the matter may be quashed to avoid harassment and preserve resources, subject to proper verification.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012(4) KLT 108PositiveThe court relied on the Gian Singh doctrine to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quash proceedings where a private settlement exists.

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 Venugopalan K.N. and Viji.E.C. v. State of Kerala and HDFC Bank; Alex K. Ipe and Abdul Salam.M.H. v. State of Kerala and HDFC Bank 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 6[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944 ``` ## **`CRL.MC NO. 248 OF 2021`** ``` CC 1150/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO.655/2011 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2:`** ``` 1VENUGOPALAN K.N. AGED 59 YEARS S/O.C.V.NARAYANAN NAIR, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KADAYIRIPPU P.O., KOLENCHERY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 682311. 2VIJI.E.C., AGED 49 YEARS W/O.VENUGOPALAN, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KADAYIRIPPU P.O., KOLENCHERY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682311. BY ADV J.RAMKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018. 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682025. ``` ``` 3H.D.F.C.BANK, S.L.PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682025, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, MR.P.RAMESH KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.K.P.PARAMASHIVAN. ``` ``` BY ADV. ADV M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN ADV. SEENA. C – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1110/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 248 OF 2021 & CRL.MC NO. 1110 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 1110 OF 2021 ``` ``` CC 1150/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS – IX, ``` ## **`ERNAKULAM`** ## **`CRIME NO.655/2011 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION`** ## **`PETITIONERS/3RD AND 5TH ACCUSED:`** ``` 1ALEX K. IPE AGED 71 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, KATTAKAYAM HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 562. ``` ``` 2ABDUL SALAM.M.H., AGED 39 YEARS S/O.HUSSAIN.M.A., VALIYA CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 017. ``` ## `BY ADV J.RAMKUMAR` ## **`RESPONDENTS /STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018. ``` ``` 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 025. ``` ``` 3H.D.F.C BANK S.L.PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, MR.P.RAMESH KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.K.P.PARAMASHIVAN. ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 248 OF 2021 & CRL.MC NO. 1110 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` BY ADV ADV M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN ADV.SEENA C – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.248/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 248 OF 2021 & CRL.MC NO. 1110 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **`ORDER`** ## **`[Crl.MC Nos.248/2021, 1110/2021]`** These Crl.M.Cs are filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in C.C. No.1150/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class magistrate Court IX, Ernakulam. Crl.M.C. No.248 of 2021 is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 whereas, Crl.M.C. No.1110/2021 is filed by the accused Nos.3 and 5. The aforesaid case arises from crime No.655/2011 of Palarivattom Police Station which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475 476, 120(b) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that, the accused Nos.1 to 5 with the intention to cheat the 3[rd] respondent/defacto complainant which is a bank, obtained a loan for accused Nos.1 and 2 by fabricating a sale deed and mortgaging the said document with the bank. Annexure A1 is the First Information Report and Annexure A2 is the Final Report submitted by the Police. These Crl.M.Cs. are filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto. ``` CRL.MC NO. 248 OF 2021 & CRL.MC NO. 1110 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` 3. Heard Sri.J.Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seena C., learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri.M.A. Joseph Manavalan, learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] /defacto complainant . 4. The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the 3[rd] respondent has sworn Annexure A3. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and the injured person has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. He also conveyed that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/defacto complainant also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the 3[rd] respondent has reiterated that, he does not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. ``` CRL.MC NO. 248 OF 2021 & CRL.MC NO. 1110 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` 5. Going through the materials available on record, it is discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108],** this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.655/2011 of Palarivattom Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1150/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court IX, Ernakulam as against the petitioners are hereby quashed. ``` Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` scs ``` CRL.MC NO. 248 OF 2021 & CRL.MC NO. 1110 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1110/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.655/2011 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.655/2017 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.02.2021 SWORN IN BY MR.RAMESH KUMAR, DEPUTY LEGAL MANAGER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 248 OF 2021 & CRL.MC NO. 1110 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 248/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.655/2011 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.655/2017 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3AFFIDAVIT DATED 09.12.2020 SWORN IN BY MR.RAMESH KUMAR, DEPUTY LEGAL MANAGER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ```