Crl.M.C.No.3384 of 2013 (D)

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/11TH BHADRA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 3384 of 2013 (D) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.245/2007 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.-II, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ C.M.SHANAWAS, AGED 46 YEARS, CHIEF EDITOR, PERIYAR GROUP OF PUBLICATIONS, P.B.No.153, ALUVA. BY ADVS.SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SRI.K.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND THE 2ND ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JAYAN, S/O JANARDHANAN, SECRRETARY, SRISHTI PUBLICATIONS PB No.8, KONNI P.O., RESIDING AT KIZHAKETTATH HOUSE, MANGARAMURI, KONNI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. BLASON, AGED 32 YEARS, COLLECTION AGENT, PERIYAR GROUP PUBLICATIONS, PB No.153, ALUVA-01. R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.MALINI R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3384 of 2013 (D) --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 142/2006 OF KONNI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/ CHARGE IN C.C.No.245/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTA. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 24-06-2013. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. ------------------------------------------ True copy P.A. to Judge ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **-----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3384 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 02[nd] day of September, 2013** ## **ORDER** 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 the accused in C.C.No.245 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.142 of 2006 of Konni Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 464, 465 & 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-AII Final Report/Charge in Crime No.142 of 2006 of Konni Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.245 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that, the 1[st] accused is a proprietor of Periyar Group Publications. The de facto complainant was the authorized agent of the said publication at Pathanamthitta. The complainant issued a cheque Crl.M.C.No.3384 of 2013 :-2-: No.248114 dated 20.12.2004 for `2,780/- drawn on the South Indian Bank, Konni Branch in order to discharge the liability that the de facto complainant owe to the 1[st] accused to Periyar Publications. But the accused 1 and 2 together illegally fabricated to the said cheque for `12,780/- and encashed the same by presenting the cheque through their account with Federal Bank, Aluva Branch. Thus the de facto complainant suffered a loss of `10,000/-. Likewise the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused together illegally fabricated cheque No.248119 dated 03/12/2011 for `2,574/- drawn on the South Indian Bank, Konni branch as a cheque for `12,574/-. But on getting information regarding the illegal acts of the accused with respect to the first cheque the de facto complainant issued a stop memo to the bank and it was returned dishonoured on presentation. Thereafter the 1[st] accused issued statutory notice to the de facto complainant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the de facto complainant issued a reply. Thus, according to the prosecution the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 464, 465 & 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioner is that during Crl.M.C.No.3384 of 2013 :-3-: the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled with the second respondent who has sworn into Annexure-A3 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 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 dispute is settled amicably between the parties 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 respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the 2[nd] respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he 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 including Annexure-A3 affidavit. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived Crl.M.C.No.3384 of 2013 :-4-: 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 under Sections 464, 465 & 420 read with 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 respondents, 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 which 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 Crl.M.C.No.3384 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3384 of 2013 :-6-: 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 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-A2 Final Report/Charge in Crime No.142 of 2006 of Konni Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.245 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj