Ahamed Rubin v. State of Kerala and Abdul Shan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2013/27TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2694 of 2013** **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LP 53/2013 IN CC.NO.2436/99 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, PUNALUR** **.... (CRIME NO.674/2009 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION)** **....** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** **AHAMED RUBIN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SALIM, HAJI MANZIL, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** ## **2. ABDUL SHAN,** - **AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL SALAM, ANJILIVILA VEEDU, PUNALUR, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM - 689 695.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA R2 BY ADV. SMT.AATHIRA RAJU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **CRMC.NO.2694/2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEX.A1: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC.NO.2436/09 ON THE FILE OF JFMC 3, PUNALUR.** **ANNEX.A2: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2694 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 18[th] day of July, 2013 ## **O R D E R** 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 is an accused in C.C.No.2436/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Punalur which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.674/2009 of Punalur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash entire proceedings in Crime No.674/2009 of Punalur Police Station as C.C.No.2436/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Punalur (Now L.P.No.53/2013) and the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation raised in the above case, by the defacto complainant is that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and issued a cheque and the amount was not repaid and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the 2 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2694 of 2013** matter is settled out of Court between himself and the second respondent, who is the defacto complainant. Annexure-A2 is the copy of the notarised affidavit filed by the defacto complainant, who is the second respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject 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 second 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 petitioner and he has no grievance against him. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions **Crl.M.C.No. 2694 of 2013** 3 of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. 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 Section 420 of IPC, which are more or less 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 second respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner 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 case, the **Crl.M.C.No. 2694 of 2013** 4 ## 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 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_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2694 of 2013** 5 _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. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2694 of 2013** 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.2436/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Punalur and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS