A. RADHAKRISHNA PAI and A.A.SURENDRA PAI v. STATE OF KERALA and TB GEORGE

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/14TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3259 of 2013** ## **--------------------------IN CC 1140/2013 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** **1. A. RADHAKRISHNA PAI, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.A.R.ACHUTHA PAI, PADMA NIVAS, RANGAPAI LANE, THAMARAKULANGARA ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA.** **2. A.A.SURENDRA PAI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.A.R.ACHUTHA PAI, PADMA NIVAS, RANGAPAI LANE, THAMARAKULANGARA ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN** ## **COMPLAINANT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO.2375/2012 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT)** **2. T.B.GEORGE, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.VAKKACHAN, THALEPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADUKARA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR C. &** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rvs.** _**Crl.MC.No. 3259 of 2013**_ ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2375/2012 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 01/08/2013.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL.** **/True Copy/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **rvs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3259 of 2013 -----------------------------------Dated this the 05[th] day of August, 2013** ## **ORDER** The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No.1140 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.2375 of 2012 of Hill Palace Police Station, Kochi for the offences punishable under Sections 120b, 406, 420 & 468 read with Section 34 of IPC with a prayer to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.1140 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the accused with an intention to cheat the de facto complainant entered into a criminal conspiracy and for sale of 40 cents of property to the second respondent after giving assurance that the petitioners are the sole owners of the property and others Crl.M.C.No.3259 of 2013 :-2-: have no right over the property. The property was transferred in the name of the second respondent by the registration of sale deed on 31/10/2012. Thereafter, the relatives of the accused filed civil suit claiming their title over the property and thereby the accused have committed the offences as alleged. Thereafter, they had taken the possession of the property and developed the land also. Thus, according to the de facto complainant, the accused two in numbers have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120b, 406, 420 & 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. Now, the case of the petitioners is that, the entire matter is settled with the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein, who has sworn into Annexure-III affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject Crl.M.C.No.3259 of 2013 :-3-: matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and he has no grievance against them. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition including Annexure-III affidavit. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 120b, 406, 420 & 468 read with Section 34 of IPC which are more or less Crl.M.C.No.3259 of 2013 :-4-: personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)] in which the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would :-5-: ## Crl.M.C.No.3259 of 2013 depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.. ## It is further held as follows:- “......... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercandile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........” According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. According to me, as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and Crl.M.C.No.3259 of 2013 :-6-: encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.1140 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj