J. RAMESH KAMATH & ORS. versus MOHANA KURUP & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 04-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 3 S.C.R. 103 
J. RAMESH KAMATH & ORS. 
v. 
MOHANA KURUP & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 445of2016) 
MAY04,2016 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Quashing of 
proceedings - Co111plai11t against respondents-office bearers of the 
Association that they misappropriated fimds' of the Association and 
misused their position as office bearers of the Association -
Settlement between the parties - Co111pounding petition in view of 
settlement - High Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the 
ground that in co111pounding petition, a stand was taken by both 
the parties that there was no misappropriation of fimds of Association 
and the offences were purely personal in nature - Held: 
The 
allegations levelled against respondents-accused could not be treated 
as purely of a personal nature -
It is also not possible to 
acknowledge the position adopted by the complainants, and the 
then members of the Association, that no misappropriation had been 
commilted by the accused -
Such a statement could not have been 
made after the investigation had been completed, and charges were 
fra111ed, which were pending trial before a court of competent 
iurisdiction - The basis on which the impugned order i1•as passed, 
was incorrectly determined as of a personal nature - It is not the 
case of the accused, that the final report does not colllain adequate 
material to substantiate the charges - Impugned order set aside -
Complaint case restored on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate. 
Al4!wing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The allegations levelled against respondent nos.1 
to 3 could not be treated as purely of a personal nature. The 
complainants, who are arrayed in the present appeal as 
respondent nos.4 to 7 surprisingly, affirmed (in the compounding 
petition) that "no misappropriation of the amounts of the 
Association is committed by the petitioners/accused persons". 
Strongly, respondent nos.8 and 9 who were the General Secretary 
103 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
104 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 3 S.C.R. 
and the Treasurer respectively of the Association, at the time of 
filing of the compounding petition, confirmed the stand adopted 
by the complainants, in the compounding petition. It is also not 
possible to acknowledge the position adopted by the 
complainants, and the then members of the Association, that no 
misappropriation had been committed by the accused. Such a 
statement contd not have been made after the investigation had 
been completed, and charges were framed, which were pending 
trial before a court of competent jurisdiction. The basis on which 
the impugned order was passed, was incorrectly determined as 
of a personal nature. Additionally, the accusations were not of a 
nature which can be classified by this Court, as were amenable to 
be quashed, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 
[Paras 18, 19] [115-A-C] 
2. Herein, the investigation has been completed, and the 
final report was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 
Ernakulam, on 22.03.2009. More than 6 years have gone by 
since then. It is not the case of the accused, that the final report 
does not contain adequate material to substantiate the charges. 
Appellant 110.l has been cited as charge witness no.5; appellant 
No.2 has been cited as charge witness 110.6; and appellant no. 3 
has been cited as charge witness no.18. The impugned order is 
set aside. [Paras 21, 22] [117-C-F] 
Nari11der Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466: 
2014 (4) SCR 1012 -
distinguished. 
Case Law Reference 
2014 (4) SCR 1()12 
distinguished 
Para 20 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
445 of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order <lated 22.12.2009 of the High Court 
of Kera la at Ernakulam in Crl. MC. No. 4154 of 2009. 
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Roy Abraham. Gautam Shivashankar, Ms. 
Seema Jain, Himinder Lal, Advs. for the Appellants. 
Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Sidhartha Dave, Sajith. P, 8. N. Dubey, 
Ms. Jemtiben, Hari Kumar V., Kumar Gaurnv, R. Chandrachud, Advs. 
for the Respondents. 
J. RAMESH KAMATH & ORS. v. MOHANA KURUP 
[JAGDISH SINGH Kl-IEHAR. J.] 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Respondents nos.4 to 7 herein describing themselves as members 
of the All Kerala Chemists and Druggists Association (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the Association'), filed a written complaint to the City 
Police Commiss

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.