Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Bineesh Thomas vs State of Kerala

Bineesh Thomas vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 04, 2022
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1444260

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.MC/438/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bineesh Thomas

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....road shyamanna layout, banglore - 560 084. by advs.b.raman pillai (sr.) r.anil m.sunilkumar sujesh menon v.b. t.anil kumar thomas abraham (nilackappillil) thomas sabu vadakekut s.lakshmi sankar mahesh bhanu s. ressil lonanrespondents/state and de facto complainant: 1 state of kerala, crl.m.c.no.438/2022 2 represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam - 682 031. 2 shaji, aged 53 years, s/o.narayanan, pazhayidath house, chandrapura, naduvattom, manjappra, kalady, ernakulam, pin - 683 574. by adv g.udayakumar this criminal misc. case having come up for admission on 04.07.2022, the court on the same day passed the following: crl.m.c.no.438/2022 3orderthe petitioners are the accused in crime no.330/cr/ocw-ii/ekm of 2017 of cbcid, ernakulam, which is now pending as c.c.no.949 of 2020 before the judicial first classmagistrate court-iv, perumbavoor. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 420 and 506(ii) read with section 34 ipc. the prosecution case is that, the petitioners have collected an amount of rs.43,34,500/- from the 2 nd respondent/de facto complainant, making him believe that they can arrange admission to the daughter of the de facto complainant in st.johns medical college, bangalore. later, no admission as offered by the petitioners was arranged and the amount was also not repaid. the complaint was submitted by the de facto complainant in such circumstances, and the same resulted in registration of the case asmentioned above. after completing the investigation annexure-a final report was filed by the cbcid. this crl.m.c is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto.3. heard sri.v.b.sujesh menon, learned counsel for thecrl.m.c.no.438/2022 4 petitioner, sri.sudheer gopalakrishnan, learned public prosecutor for the state and sri.g.udayakumar, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent.4. prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been.....

Full Judgment

Crl.M.C.No.438/2022 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 438 OF 2022 CRIME NO.330/2017 OF CBCID, ERNAKULAM, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 949/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IV, PERUMBAVOOR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

1 BINEESH THOMAS, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, NO.2ARPHI APPARTMENT, RICHMOUND ROAD, WENOARD LANE, NEAR JOHNSON MARKET, BANGLORE - 560 089. 2 JIKKU JOSEPH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH POTHEN, MADATHIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA NOW RESIDING AT 96 GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, OIL MILL ROAD SHYAMANNA LAYOUT, BANGLORE - 560 084. BY ADVS.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) R.ANIL M.SUNILKUMAR SUJESH MENON V.B. T.ANIL KUMAR THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT S.LAKSHMI SANKAR MAHESH BHANU S. RESSIL LONAN

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, Crl.M.C.No.438/2022 2 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 SHAJI, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PAZHAYIDATH HOUSE, CHANDRAPURA, NADUVATTOM, MANJAPPRA, KALADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 574. BY ADV G.UDAYAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.438/2022 3

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.330/CR/OCW-II/EKM of 2017 of CBCID, Ernakulam, which is now pending as C.C.No.949 of 2020 before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-IV, Perumbavoor. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners have collected an amount of Rs.43,34,500/- from the 2 nd respondent/de facto complainant, making him believe that they can arrange admission to the daughter of the de facto complainant in St.Johns Medical College, Bangalore. Later, no admission as offered by the petitioners was arranged and the amount was also not repaid. The complaint was submitted by the de facto complainant in such circumstances, and the same resulted in registration of the case as

mentioned above. After completing the investigation Annexure-A final report was filed by the CBCID. This Crl.M.C is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

3. Heard Sri.V.B.Sujesh Menon, learned counsel for the

Crl.M.C.No.438/2022 4 petitioner, Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.G.Udayakumar, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent.

4. Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled.

Annexure-B affidavit sworn by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavit, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no-objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant also confirms the same. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Station House Officer concerned has verified the veracity of the same and found it to be genuine.

5. The allegations would reveal that the dispute is purely

private in nature. In such circumstances, by applying the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], proceedings can be quashed by invoking the powers of this Court under Section Crl.M.C.No.438/2022 5 482 Cr.P.C. This is particularly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-A final report submitted in Crime No.330/CR/OCW-II/EKM of 2017 of CBCID, Ernakulam and all further proceedings in C.C.No.949 of 2020 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Perumbavor against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/5.7.22 Crl.M.C.No.438/2022 6 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 438/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.330/CR/OCW-II/EKM OF 2017 OF CBCID, ERNAKULAM. Annexure B AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial