Alexander Thomas and Sindhu Alexander v. State of Kerala and Saramma Varghese

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2013/11TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3257 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------LP 59/11 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, MAVELIKARA CRIME NO. 267/2009 OF MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT** **----------------** ## **PETITIONERS / ACCUSED :** **-----------------------------------------** **1. ALEXANDER THOMAS, THIRUVALIL HOUSE, PUNNAMOODU P.O., MAVELIKKARA NOW RESIDING AT THIRUVALIL SNAKEERTHANA, PALLARIMANGALAM THEKKEKARA, MAVELIKARA - 690 107.** **2. SINDHU ALEXANDER, THIRUVALIL HOUSE, PUNNAMOODU P.O., MAVELIKKARA NOW RESIDING AT THIRUVALIL SANKEERTHANA, PALLARIMANGALAM THEKKEKARA, MAVELIKARA - 690 107.** **BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN SRI.K.J.SHARATH KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS / STATE AND COMPLAINANT :** **-------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.** **2. SARAMMA VARGHESE, MARYLAND HOUSE, THENGUVILAYIL, KALLIMEL MURIYIL, VETTIYAR VILLAGE - 690 557.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. REJI JHOSEPH R2 BY ADV. SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3257 of 2013 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 267/09 OF MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF FINAL REPORT FILED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MAVELIKARA AS 274/2010. ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3257 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 2[nd] day of August, 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 are accused in Crime No.267/2009 of Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure I FIR and Annexure 2 final report and all further proceedings in L.P.No.59/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikara as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioners approached the 2[nd] respondent and her husband for taking an LIC policy and obtained an amount of Rs.1,00,000/from as its premium. Later, it was known to the 2[nd] respondent from LIC office that no such policy was ever taken in the name of her husband. When the 2[nd] respondent sought to initiate criminal prosecution for such cheating, the petitioners agreed to return the amount. The 1[st] petitioner issued a chque in favour of husband of the 2[nd] respondent and the same when presented, dishonoured for want of funds. Thus according to **Crl.M.C.No.3257 of 2013** 2 the allegation the petitioners accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled between the petitioners and the second respondent who is the defacto complainant, who sworn into an Annexure-3 affidavit 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second 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 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 petitioners and she has no grievance against them. **Crl.M.C.No.3257 of 2013** 3 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. 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 Sections 406 & 420 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3257 of 2013** 4 ## (4) KLT 108(SC)]. In which case, 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 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_ 5 ## **Crl.M.C.No.3257 of 2013** _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. 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.3257 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 Annexures-1 and 2 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.267/2009 of Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN,** **JUDGE** AS