Karnataka High Court
Sri Santhosh Karimattom vs Teh Central Bureau Of Investigation on 18 July, 2008
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18"' DAY OF JULY 2808
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE Mr, JUSTECET H N NAGAMOHAN ms
CRL. P. NO.301Sf'2007 CIW S231/2007
CRLP NO 3015 OF 200?
SR1 SANTHOSH KAMMATTOM
S/O LATE SCARIA JOSEPH
AGED BAOUT 43 YRS " 5
R/AT KARIMATTOM HOUSE') ~ '-
MUTTAMBALAM POST --
KOTTAYAM £2131' '
KERALA STATE
~ PETITIONER
(By Sri ; Tomi :éEmS'f1;é.t\:,..éR.},"CbLrNsEL FOR
M/3 TOME' SE«'3S1"_IAN ASSOCINFES)
1 #T=}:3«T<::é}v1f%Ré;L.;*3UREAu op' iNVESTiGA'I'ION
CEBI: Sm,-§:;YT1ITs msparrroa or POLICE
or:-':;'1c;=;~ 1:-:.r KEANGENAHALLE BANGALORE
CQRPORATION BANK
CJANTONMENT BRANCH
" BANGALORE
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
A J 'SR1 M c TOM
S/0 ,AGED ABOUT YRS
R/AT No.3 DAEU VILLE'. APARTMENT
CHURCH :s'1m;a:':; uamuawzer; 550 001
0Lv\/\
4 SM'? ANNEXMMA JOSEPH
Wff) LATE SC-ARIA JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 63 YRS
R/AT ND! QC CENTURY TOWERS
YMCA R0313 KOTTAYAM
KERALA STATE}
5 SMT SQBHA SAJAN M V
WIO SAJAN
AGED ABOUT 41 YRS
K/AT 950.26 €311§N'1'URY '1'()W,F:}i<?S
YMCA RGAII} KOTTAYAM " '
KERALA STATE:
6 SRIMSROY
S/O SEBASTIAN £IO$E.?E\§ ;
AGED ABOUT 39 YRS '
RA/T MQGLAYEL HOUSE _
PERUMPANcE.Eb£.Po,;_'cI{E1aic}Am":2;HEW
KCETTAYAM "
KERAL-A '
2? SR£NiA..GQ'91DA:3
S/O mrrg v..9;,APm;;~u
AGEI§. £&EsGLiT'3?S'-»';'RS ' %
R/AT 1~;;aD;ARAJA'3HA*:aa'I~:AM
MANYATE 2m1>:;m_ PO - _
§{(j1'}'TAYAM'£}I$'F
KERALA S'FA'I'x'":"l__ V
RESPONDENTS
(By"':s;~i-T":.%:wis::'r-.éi2a3$z"i'£I~1#é;s..,I FOR' ASHOK HARNAHALLI &.
A _ 'Ass(:ic%I's:5:' FOR R1
Sri ';"~M.:--fe'AvINnRANA'rH KAMATH FOR R3 TO E2'?
: 'v'~.B;i,?A\r'ISHANKAR FQR R2]
%%<:;»m» I3-TLEII) U[S.482 CR.P.C- BY THE ADVOCATE
1if'c>_I;>=,_*'rr---I:=; pI3':'I'i'r'I<:>NaR PRNEING THAT mas HOWBLE
ii _£:c:«L:I~2€r MAY BE} PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS
T §N'=<:=.€:.NC).124/O3 on THE FELE3 012* THE xxx ADI}L.SJ., :55
Si?'L.JUDGE FOR CTBI CASES, B'L€)RE CZTITY OR'
"~.AV §3;LTERNATIVELY QUASH THE CASE AGAINST THE PETE.
AND DiF2EC'1' THE COURT BELOW TO RECORD
{EOE/£P€)UNI3§P€G DEF THE OFFENCE UIS-3.428 IPC AND
DISCHARGE THE PETE'. WHO IS ACCUSED $40.3. fis§'*ID
THE RESPONDENT 1\¥C}S.3 T0 7 WHO ARE ACC-{ESEE}
N032 AND 5 TC) 3.
CRL17-' NO 5231 OF 2007
BETWEEN
1 M 4:: TOM V _
S/C) MJCHACKQ "
AGED 50 YEARS --
950.3/cg, mean VELLA APAK'£fMi:3N'1'?5__
CHURCH STREET, BANGAL{)F2_E3-01
2 MRS ANNAMMA JOSEPH
AGED 64 YEARS, W; (3. .LATE..J'()3E}'P}9§'
s\I0.2--<::, CENTURY'i"'O\NERS--_ = "
Y.M.(.2.A. ROAD __ ' ;
KOTTAYAM _ '
3 MRS s@BHA:__'SA;:-mi
A{3~EE)4{) YEARS ,
w/Q LATE sA;3;~_'N-»._' " ~
No.2-<3, c:E:NTLI,R'Y._f:*w0W.g'}ez9"
Y.M.C.A."R_QA_D A °
KO'I'I'A.YAM" _ V.
z .....
= , AC3E3}1)_ 37 YEARS
_ ,/{Cs TS'E.BA5§'T..{A'3: JOSEPH
" .£vi{)_0Li'aYi~L_I~I1:)USB, PERUMPAN.'\CHEY(P.O)
{1HAN{}§'gN.§';.CHb}RK¥, KU'i'i'AYAM
GOPIDAS N A
. ' ago LATE V s APPSNNI
Ac-an 34 YEARS
Vmuaxaua BHAVANAM
MANTHURTHI(P.O)
% --KO'I"I"AYAM
f'I:'I'i'l'i"£UN£f}I'€S
(By Sri: K SUNDARAM 55 ANTONY C, ADV.)
d4(\\_%
1 CENTRAL BUREAU Q?' fNVESTfGA'FION
C8i:S?E:BY ITS WSPECTFOR OF POLICE
OFFICE AT GANGENNAHALLE
BANGALORE'
:2 BY GENERAL MANAGER 1
Z-ONAL OFFICE A.
CORPORATION BANK, M.C3r.RO'AD'-
BANGALORE . "
3 SANTHOSH §{ARIMAT1"OM.4,
AGED 44 YEARS L' _
8/O LATE SCARIA;-=;JOSEPh" -.
KARIMMTOM HOLIISE '_
MU'1'I'AM5ALAM 9 £5' _T 'A '
KOTFAYAM V '
KERALA _f
[DVEL§:'r£«;;§'x5;Q..D"F[:Q;'1i2;290:?j
1 4 ...RESPOND£1N'I'S
(By Sri ; HETMANTH %I§A1»'§f£:;}}R' ASHOK HARANAHALLI &
A. 1, Assaclams {#05: R1
= '*«.!.B,i<Axf§:3t:iANKAK F(_)b€ 142)
A * ' "cR'LT:,'P:.'P*z.i;E{> U/S. 482 CR.P.C 85:' THE ADVOCATE
AF'f..)R _THE "'P_E'Ffi'i'ONER PRAYING THAT THIS E~iON'ELE}
ccjum' MAY PLEASELD TO QUASH THE) CASE} AQAINSE'
THE"PET.:'T}0NER FOR THE O?-'FENCE UNDER SEC.120«B
IHPC AP»I3}_DIRECI' THE COURT BELOW TO RECORD
VCQMPOUNDING OF OFFENCE U18. 420 OF IPC ANID
' ~ l_Z'ISCE=!ARGE 'THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE ACCUSED
" _ AND 5 'l'() 8 IN S1-'L.(,L().N{). 124/O3 UN 'l'fi£:1 HLEJ 01*'
"*THE XXI ADDL.S:ESSIONS JUDGE} AND SPL.COUF:"T, CBI,
Bfi;NC}AL(3?E.
These criminal Petitiens having been heard and
-ram nnnn car} 43;'-.« rkvvinvvm £54.' .3.-my 'IIAl".*.kl!»R('\'I'JRI!' fikfl T
xpauxvuu .1v.1 uiutao, um» uag, .I.I::\.naun.\.n.n.:n.|I unu u.,
pronounced the following;
/7%"
ORDER
The petitioners in these criminal petitiens accused in C.C.No.124/2903 pending an the Add}. Sessions and Specie} Judge for CE} ea$§:S,:"}' city. In these petitions the petififeneté' have compound the offence gatmishable unt:fteA1' :Z§eetio::t, t' read with Section 420 {PC and t€;:-tjt;as11 in CC. No. 124/ 2003.
'L2. Petitigmers are ' iiteeeqtznt h:e2e1e1*s in the Corporation Bangalore (for short ' t1:1§..e§;attet_'''ef e1isce11ntiI1g of cheques dining th.e"3;ear_ tiefifioners caused substantiai fmancial }oee~«.to"the an extent of Rs.111.{}6 lakhs. ,_'_I'he L13,itiateVti'v}:2n:a::eer1i21gs befcsre the Debt Recovery the petitioners herein for recovery of money' initiated criminal cases under Section 138 '.VNegetiab;1etV ieefiuments Act. Durizag the pendency of these "..:t'pfeeeedinV:gs, the Bank referred the matter for investigation :5; t}':Aze 19* respondent CB1. 1*' respondent after " Hiiivestigation filed charge sheet against the petitioners and A. the bank manager in Spi.C.C.No.124/2063 for offences punishable under Section 120-8 311:} 420 IPC 1'/W 13 0f (94/"/\' Prevention of COI'I"l1ptiOI1 Act. The special court had taken cognizance of the offence and issued process to the petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Special (301131: the accused settled the dispi1te.'.§éii:I:"'-. Bank by paying the entire amount together wifii' H Consequently the Bank has ufiflldrowfi the c;;:gise.:vii1xe§:¥.._?iVefoi*e Debt recovery Tribunal anfi the czi11iioai.A.Ap}§oeeed_ii1gs Secfioo. 138 of Negotiabie Insii'11ii1ents Afict the petitioners. The petitioners V_apv@'1°o5%1e.hed '£1113, court. in Cr1.P.-4089/2005 to quaeih {he against them in C.C.No. m5_/ 2oof3"'o:§.': 'Criat they have C0Ii1];)Z'(}111i€€%fiC'14..T:iZ£{'3 ffiritii tiief This court vide order defied .oe'ia§i1;ssea or1.§>.4o8o/2005 with at liberty to to"_.-oiaproaoh the speciai court for V disc1"1zj§i*geeA.in with law. Thereafter, the ifiefitiooeioiiiiIed--..appIications for discharge before the special pending consideration. when the _ matter s£oor1.«fé1t that stage, the Bank filed an application illldfiif' Seeiion 320 Cr. RC. before the Specie} Judge with a _ to grant permission to coztopound the offences Vi aigzafinst the petifioners herein. T he petitioners also filed an =iVappIi<:afion to compound the ofiences alleged ageinsi them, on the gonad that they have settied the matter with the Bank. These applications fded by the petitionere herein and the Bank for compounding offences are pendmg adjttdieation. when the matter stood at that stage,----_the petitioners have appmached this court in these petiti{)1:téL:'vv,< compound the efiences and to quash the 1 V' befeae the Special Judge on the gsfotzznd Judge has me 3'ur.isriictic)2:1 to * eempotmd the n.0n~compound_aL~1e ofite-:1Vce. u1'1cie1=_:'$eetibn 120-B of IPC.
3. Sri Tomy Sei3aeti.é;:1,V 'learneti sertier counsel for the petitione14~g7_.:vix1eéiatended that the petitiofiers :have"u amount due by them with i11tere-'st4__tto the they have settled the matter. E11 vigéte eat' this" dettelepirment, no useful purpose W33} be eeiveei the proceedings before the Speciai {,f'17i_ci';ie,1 "interest is involved in View of the fact that V Vt _ the 15etiti<)iie::e have paid the entire amoimt due to the bank in "tiie circumstances. they may be pezmitted to _ '¢er}j3;pe*i2.x1d the offence. He further contends that on earlier eceasion when this court riismissed the CrI.P.4080/2005 "there was no agjplication pending befoze the Special Judge for compounding offence and as such the same is not an /9»/* '°~.__,_.
imyediment new for this court to permit, the panties to compound. the offence. Both the Bank and the petitiormrs are befere the Trial Court with an appiicatio3; »._4:'fexf_ compoxmdixlg the offence and themfom '(hare if_s;'""nof _ impediment to allow the parties to compound...¥:§:t:.VVoifi'1e:nce. ' Since {ha special court is not '£9 1, parties to compound a nonjoogmpefugtiabie 1r)f€r:::.1:cV:e"
therefore they are before 11}:1Véic:r""E3'--&§cti'é,t1 482 Cr.P.C. This court is h.;§Vi11g pemait {ha parties to compound thé Anotz4:i:é§m--p_%§'1{i3d»§:Z91e offence in View 9f the sett}&m::j: _1t afgd iizxjixt-stice, Rsfiance is placed' "oh" iifofiéivmg 'd§cisi0ii's:" "
:1) ' 1995 AiR{Sc3.V1g5ageV#_.2452 ' .,_C}?»! Vs. i)1111(_':sin_Agro Industries Ltd. ;'.£i~ _ 2c503{4)ScC_. gage 675 ~ V ' 13.S.Jc$:shi_,a;1d others Vs Stairs of Haryana " ~ "«%:2<3_'o'":3..cr1.L..3. page 1763 ' 'Safiesh Bharadwaj Shanna Vs. State of ' .;.3:na;rknand ' 'iv.) 2907(3), paga 838 ' . * Kulfwindcr Szlzxgh Vs. State of Punjab. V. _ 1" {ta cm 2008 so 458 ' " Madanmohan Abbot Vs. Stats of Punjab
vi) ILR 1998 KAR 7"?-4 State of Karnataka Vs. Basavaxaju d"'"'"
. tieeiSioi1si:''e :
4. Sri Antony learned counsel for the petitienere in Cr1.P.No.f:§231]200'? centenéeci that the efiencea alleged under Section 420 CRPC is compoundaple and the in the instant case the parties have setfle&..:€i2e'~'.VV dispute and thexefore there is no impediment fo1_*_--fl1e' V. to permit the parties to compound; the ofi?:i1ee';: .I'f"=£f1e ofience under Section 420 is COK1}301ifld6d' ti'1e1:»._t11e "0ife1:1k:e :;_* under Sectien 1208 will not stiifiigfe therefore he contended to' allow -xpiefiifiioxee to Vvjaermit the parties to eomyoundv Eie eezetended that there is no legal permit the Bank to g£:'¢ni¢e§ petitioners and to pmceed the special Judge.
There to_-Wfizeeceed against accused no.1 alonzegfindwto' fuiififioners (accuseci 2 to 8) to compq-.mdu t1fie"ofi'e11e;.es.A"-RVe}}len(:e is placed 011 the following V T. ' w,:34:'RVe.2fe03 so 1386 ' A '_'E3_._S~.:Joshi Vs. State of Haxyazxa 6:. another teexned counsel for the Bank Sri x V' :V.B.'TRavie§1ankar adopts the arguments advanced can behalf
- "1A3etifione1'e.
O_LW....
_ i}1§3'--.!':I}f§:f€} pabers.
3;§étit3lor2ez*s and the Bank appmacheci thifi Conn: in Crl.I-". No. 4080/ 2005 for quashing the proceedings on the groufld
6. Sri, Hemantha Raj leamed counsel far the 1'"
respondent CB} contends that the ofience under 120-13 and 420 IPC are inseparabie. The permit the parties to compound a ' ' caffance. in the event of compouné the offences aga§ns§»?1}em,v4fl3 € :;.. it is glfikf. to proceed against the accuséti«L: Eao. 1 Judge. He ftrzrthftr COI}t€fld.§ océeééionvvyécn the very same ground the pefifiafiefgz. court in Cr1.P.408{)/ 200$ « fifijected. in 8:12:
abaencrs: c.>f ail}? :;E§?£iC1 new developments, the pres€:::1vt:V"1:>'cét;i--t;V§.«;}='}r;;$ E§§"E€}:€Cf€d. Reliance is piaced on H 13 g1§99j5.s€;C V ' ~ Surend-rafiath Mohanty Vs. State of {Z)x:is3a A sti'"i'?4 V' 'V Vs. Stair: of J 8:. K. z arguments on both the side anti perused R is not in disgute: that an eariier occasion the UL"
11
that they have compromised the ciispute. This Cleurt vieie order dated 83.12.2005 dismissed the getition with a Iibeity to agproach the Tria} Court for discharge. This A. 3 order observed as under:
"But in the present tease, ftitet ~' Inforrnation was lodged en' 27.1'-1.2802 charge sheet was filed on Péeittgeib-let' the time of lodging of ne1=__at theti1_11e vet lodging of the charge _siteet,.V%'th.eV.,eicet1sed "Were available ta police. iapse of about two. fears Ve1;gei;g;e sheet, petitiogxetie ti§1:e""'me.tter with the due to the 'ttie~.eirct3iiistat1ees under which ttieee'-- ' got the matter eotepremieed V 'thank have to be A.190}{edfl"'i.:1t.o; these petitieners had no 'i'¢in,stet1tion td cheeat the bank, they would have » _VVi£Ltmed:i:e'tei_y got the matter compromised with the the yendency ef investigatien A itself.' ejfiflieugh the offence has occurred in the 2 metxtii of June 2000, the petitioners have slept 'A '_ eifer the matter till 2005. Even after ioeiging of [.--F.1.e. in the year 2002 and filing of charge sheet in the year 2003, they éid not epen their eyes. i~¥owever, when the 68.1., made all efibrts to corner the petitioners, they compmmised the matter with bank. Under such circumstances, in my consittered opinion, the compromise or dwfe, would have been a grmmd for pleading mitigation at the flea} stage."
Under such cizcueastances, i am of..~th.e' considered View that even if there 2 compromise between the :a;1?1ei"*: 4' petitioners and though the » t At the amounts due to the bank léLtef,--._the seine is' not enough in the facts cix'e'i1;::;3.sta;iCee'~.. c5f' the case on hand, for q1_:.__a":.~:hm.g the pzoeeedings ' ~ . . %
9. The ogeség ef ajgis §e.;§mteti:§'_e:1.I%§.«z§o. 4030/2005 had b6COII16{'fifi'3}.V£T:{il:_ ,8.CCf:1§)til1g the order had before the Trial Court and the ié the petitioners and the Bank are before _(3o*.11*,t for same relief of quashing the V' befoIe"Vfhe'"TVIia1 Court on the gmund that they the offence. The Supreme Court in AIR iiheid that the Principles of resjuciicata are '@330 applvicabvie to criminal proceedings. On earlier oeeasien I this Court dismissed the request of the petitioners fer
--..t.'-'qtitashing the proceedings, the application for compounding .4 offence was not pending. Now the application filed by the parties for compounriirxg is pending. This development ef fiiing an apgflicafiexz for compounding will in no way Ob/\/' 15
12. For the reasons stated above, the petitions am heraby rejected with no order as to costs. Sfl/1 DKBI LRS.