Badusha Kundupparambil and Beeran v. P.K. Sidhik Paranayi and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/23RD JYAISHTA 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1872 of 2013 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 284/2011 OF CHELAKKARA POLICE STATION , TRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------ 1. BADUSHA KUNDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHELAKKARA 2. BEERAN, MASIKKAL HOUSE, CHELAKKODE, CHELAKKARA BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------------------------- 1. P.K.SIDHIK PARANAYI HOUSE, IRAMALLOOR P O, KOTHAMANGALAM ERNAKULAM DIST – 686 691. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHELAKKARA POLICE STATION – 680 586. 3. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM R1 BY ADV. SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE R2 AND R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1872 of 2013 ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE: ---------------------- ANNEXURE I:-TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE smv ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J** ## **---------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.NO. 1872 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 13[th] day of June, 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. 284 of 2011 of Chelakkara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure I First information Report in Crime No.284/2011 of Chelakkara Police Station in the interest of justice as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioner/accused collected an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the petitioner in order to deposit in FLOREZSA RTP net work and thereby cheated the de facto complainant offering with interest based upon the said complaint a crime was registered against the petitioners as Cr.No.284/2011 of Chelakkara police station and now, the case of the petitioner/s is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the first respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. **Crl.M.C.NO. 1872 of 2013** 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, 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 crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the first 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. 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 420, 406 r/w 34 of I.P.C which are **Crl.M.C.NO. 1872 of 2013** 3 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 first respondent, it appears to me that the 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 Gian Singh's 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_ **Crl.M.C.NO. 1872 of 2013** 4 _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 personal in nature_ **Crl.M.C.NO. 1872 of 2013** 5 _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 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 **Crl.M.C.NO. 1872 of 2013** 6 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 Annexure -I First Information Report and in Crime No. 284/2011 of Chelakkara Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS ## **Crl.M.C.NO. 1872 of 2013** 7