Baradendu Namval @ Barath and Lalitha v. State of Kerala and The Sub Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, and Ajay Darbari

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2014/31ST VAISAKHA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 2225 of 2014** **----------------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 1132/2013 OF MECICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM** **--------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------** ## **1. BARADENDU NAMVAL @ BARATH,** **S/O.DEEN DAYAL YADAV, SANTHOSH VILLA, PLOT NO 14 B, BHUVANESWARI VATIKA, BAJAJRI MANDI ROAD, PAANCHAWALA, JAIPUR CITY (KOL POLICE STATION LIMIT, MAMARIA AHIL P.O, ASAMPUR RIWARI, HARYANA).** ## **2. LALITHA, AGED 46 YEARS,** **D/O.VIMALA, NO 106, BLUE NILE LODGE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT MANDAVOUR, PHEAL VILLAGE, KHAIRTHAL TALUK, ALWAR DISTRICT RAJASTAN.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **-------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** ## **3. AJAY DARBARI,** - **WING COMMANDER, HQ, SACIAF, AKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 031.** **R1 & 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA R3 BY ADV. SMT.ANJU P.NAIR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2225 of 2014** ## **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 1132/2013 DT 27-06-2013** **ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 25-10-2013 IN B.A NO 7013/2013 ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT 21-03-2014** **ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DT 28TH MARCH 2014** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** **--------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **K. Ramakrishnan, J. ============================== Crl.M.C.No.2225 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 21[st] day of May, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** This is an application filed by the accused in Crime No.1132/2013 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1132/2013 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram which was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the third respondent before the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram which was forwarded to the Medical College Police Station through proper channel against the petitioners alleging offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 66 (A) & 66(C) of Information Technology Act. The matter has now been settled between the parties due to the intervention of mediators and others. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction. Further, some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature. So, they could not file the Crl.M.C.No.2225 of 2014 : 2 : application before the concerned court or before the police. So, they have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief: _“To call for the records leading to Crime No.1132/2013 of the Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, pending before the Hon'ble Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and quash the entire proceedings on the basis of the agreement entered into between the de facto complainant and the petitioners and on the basis of the petition filed by the de facto complainant for withdrawing the complaint and for not further prosecuting the same.”_ 3. The third respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of mediators and he has no complaint against the petitioners now. Further, he had filed Annexure 4 affidavit stating these facts. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction and it is a purely a money transaction. So, he prayed for allowing the application. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed to this court submitted that, there is no other case against the petitioners but opposed the application. 5. It is an admitted fact that there was some transaction between the third respondent-de facto complainant and the Crl.M.C.No.2225 of 2014 : 3 : petitioners and since that transaction has not materialized, third respondent filed a complaint before the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and that complaint was forwarded to the Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram within whose jurisdiction the alleged offence has been committed through proper channel and on that basis, Medical College Police has registered Annexure A1 First Information Report as Crime No.1132/13 originally under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code alone against the first petitioner. Thereafter, during investigation, it was revealed that second petitioner also involved in the crime and offences under Sections 66(A) & 66(C) of Information Technology Act were also committed and second petitioner was also implicated as second accused and above provisions were also incorporated in the First Information Report. Second petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this court as per Annexure A2 order. It is seen from the documents produced that there was some transaction regarding promise of obtaining Medical College seat and the same has been now settled between the Crl.M.C.No.2225 of 2014 : 4 : parties. They have entered in to Annexure A3 agreement regarding this transaction and A4 affidavit was filed by the de facto complainant stating that the matter has been settled between the parties and he does not want to proceed with the case in view of the settlement due to the intervention of mediators. On going through the allegations, it is seen that it is some sort of money transaction between the parties. Further, the prosecutor had submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners of committing similar offences as well. In view of the settlement between the parties, there is no possibility of conviction as well as neither the de facto complainant nor his witnesses will support the case of the prosecution. 6. Further, in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC),** the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: _“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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_ Crl.M.C.No.2225 of 2014 : 5 : _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. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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, mercantile, 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 case, 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. In other words,_ Crl.M.C.No.2225 of 2014 : 6 : _the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”_ 7. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and it is not a case of public interest but, purely a private transaction between the de facto complainant and the petitioners and in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings as no purpose will be served by keeping the case any longer. 8. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.1132/13 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram as against the petitioners is hereby quashed. Crl.M.C.No.2225 of 2014 : 7 : Office is directed to communicate this order to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram to inform the same to the concerned Police Station for necessary further action immediately. Sd/- **K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.** Bb _[True copy]_ _P.A to Judge_