Crl.M.C. No. 2448 of 2013

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/27TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2448 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------- ---------CRIME NO. 275/2013 OF PARIYARAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR** **..........** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** ## **1. C.DAMODARAN** **AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. KANNAN, MALERIPURAM PARIYARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **2. PARAYIL BALAKRISHNAN** **AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. CHEMMURAN, MALERIPURAM PARIYARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **3. K. SAHAJAN** **AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. K.X. NARAYANAN, PARIYARAM P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE** **----------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. RAMAKRISHNAN K.** **S/O.K.P. CHURYKANDAN, AGED 58 YEARS, AISWARYA EMPETT, PARIYARAM AMSOM, PARIYARAM DESOM TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 502.** **2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **CRMC. NO.2448/2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS ANNEXURES** **AI:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -I, PAYYANNUR.** **AII:- COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.275/2013 OF PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION.** **AIII:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES.** **AIV:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES.** ## **RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES** **NIL** **TRUE COPY** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2448 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 17[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. 275/2013 of Pariyaram Medical College Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 408 r/w 34 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure-AII F.I.R Crime No. 275 of 2013 of Pariyaram Medical College Police Station, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioners were elected as the committee members of the Udayapuram Kshethra Shashana Committee on 26/12/2011 and they committed criminal breach of trust by depositing the amount of the committee, which ought to have deposited in the account of the committee, in their personal account against the bye law of the committee and there by committed the offences punishable under Sections 408 r/w 34 of I.P.C and now, the case of the petitioners are that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as **Crl.M.C.No. 2448 of 2013** 2 well as the first respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 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 crime. 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 **Crl.M.C.No. 2448 of 2013** 3 involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only Sections 408 r/w 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 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 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_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2448 of 2013** 4 _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_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2448 of 2013** 5 _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. 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2448 of 2013** 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 -AII and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No. 275 of 2013 of Pariyaram Medical College Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS