Bithun Murali v. State of Kerala and K.T. Devi

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/7TH ASHADHA, 193** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2647 of 2013 ()** ## **--------------------------CC.NO. 49/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, PERAMBRA -------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-------------------------------------** **BITHUN MURALI,AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, PONNUMPARAMBATH HOUSE, K.C ROAD, PURAKKATTIRY, THALAKULATHUR P.O, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. K.T.DEVI, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.LATE BALAN, RESIDING AT 'POURNAMI', KONGATH THAZHEKUNI, KONGANNOOR P.O, ATHOLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673 315.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH R2 BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 2647 of 2013 () ------------------------------------APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ------------------------------------------ANNEX A. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.49/2013 BEFORE JFCM COURT NO.11, PERAMBRA DATED 30.11.2012. ANNEX B. THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.06.2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2647 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 28th 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 petitioner, who is accused in C.C.No.49 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.II, Perambra which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.280 of 2012 of Atholy Police Station in Kozhikode district] for the offences punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.49 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.II, Perambra as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioner has stolen gold chain of the de facto complainant on 26.11.2012 and, thereby, the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on the next date of the alleged occurrence. Annexure-B is the affidavit of the decfacto complainant who is the second respondent in the above case. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as 2 Crl.M.C.No.2647 of 2013 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 she has no grievance against him. 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 3 Crl.M.C.No.2647 of 2013 involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only Section 379 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 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 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 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_ 4 Crl.M.C.No.2647 of 2013 _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 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 5 Crl.M.C.No.2647 of 2013 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 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-A Final Report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.49 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.II, Perambra and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN Judge** mns/ Crl.M.C.No.2647 of 2013 6