Crl.M.C.No.3422 of 2016

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3422 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO. 1855/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO. 720/2012 OF MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT** **----------------------** ## **PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------------** **ANITHAKUMARI, W/O.RAJENDRAPANICKER, AGED 46 YEARS, VATTATHUCHIRA VEEDU, WARD NO.13, CHERTHALA SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA DIST.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SRI.SANDEEP T.GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND CWS 2 TO 16:** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** ## **2. DIVYA, W/O.SAJEEV, AGED 28 YEARS,** **KAMBIYAKATHU VELIYILA VEEDU, WARD NO. 2, KANJIKUZHI, CHERTHALA TALUQ, (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT).** **3. JOMON, S/O.JOHN, AGED 25 YEARS, EARATTUPUZHA HOUSE, WARD NO. 2, KANJIKUZHI CHERTHALA, TALUQ CW-2** **4. PRASANNA, W/O.RANGAN, 34 YEARS, MADATHIPARAMBU HOUSE, WARD NO. 1, KANJIKUZHI, CHERTHALA TALUQ, CW -3** **5. ANILKUMAR,AGED 35 YEARS, CHERUKUNNATHU VELI HOUSE, TEKKUPANCHAYT, CHERTHALA, CW -4** **6. OUSEPH DEVASSYA, S/O.OUSEPACHAN, AGED 72 YEARS, KARAIKKAVELI VEEDU, WARD NO.1, KANJIKUZHI, CHERTHALA TALUQ (CW-5)** **2/-** **-2-** ## **CRL.M.C.NO.3422/2016** ## **7. AJITH, S/O.ASOKAN, AGED 22 YEARS, VADAKKE VELI VEEDU, KANJIKUZHI, CHERTHALA TALUQ, CW -6** ## **8. SASIKALA,** **W/O.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 58 YEARS, MADATHIPARAMBU HOUSE, KANJIKUZHI, CHERTHALA TALUQ, CW -7** ## **9. NAZEEMA,** **W/O.TAHA, AGED 48 YEARS, KALLARAKAL HOUSE, KANJIKUZHI PANCHAYTH, WARD NO. 1, CHETHALA TALUQ, (CW-8)** ## **10. SASIDHARAN,** **S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, CHAKKUNAGAL WARD NUMBER 3, KANJIKUZHI, CHERTHALA TALUQ (CW- 9)** **11. SEBASTIAN K DOMINIC, S/O.DOMINIC, AGED 40 YEARS, KOIPARAMBIL HOUSE, WARD 20, CHERTHALA TALUQ (CW-10)** ## **12. JEENAMOL,** - **AGED 16 YEARS, D/O.JAMES, MADAVANA VEEDU, WARD NO.1, KANJIKUZHI, CHERTHALA TALUQ, CW -11** ## **13. NAWAS,** **S/O.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 48 YEARS, THURUTHIL VEEDU, MANNACHERI WARD NO.7, CHERTHALA, CW-12** ## **14. RAMALTH BEEVI,** - **W/O.SALIM, AGED 51 YEARS, CHILAMBESSERI VEEDU, WARD NO.1, KANJIKUZHI, CHERTHALA TALUQ, CW-13** **15. CHACKO, S/O.DEWASSIA, AGED 64, MADATHIPARAMBU HOUSE, WARD NO.1, KANJIKUZHI, CHERTHALA TALUQ, CW-14** **16. VINOD, S/O.VISHWAMBHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, MADATHIL PARAMBU HOUSE, WARD NO. 1, KANJIKUZHI, CHERTHALA TALUQ (CW-15)** **17. SUDHIN, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 25 YEARS, CHIRAPURATHU VEEDU, WARD NO.1, KANJIKUZHI, CHERTHALA TALUQ, CW-16** - **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R2 TO R17 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3422 of 2016 ()** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -----------------------------------------------** **ANNEX A PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 720/2012 OF MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION ALAPPUZHA ANNEX B ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 28.09.2015 ANNEX C ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 30.05.2016 ANNEX D ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 30.05.2016 ANNEX E ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 12.10.2015 ANNEX F ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DTD. 12.10.2015 ANNEX G ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DTD. 30.05.2016 ANNEX H ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DTD. 30.05.2016 ANNEX I ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT DTD. 28/09/15 ANNEX J ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT DTD. 30.05.2016 ANNEX K ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT DTD. 12/10/15 ANNEX L ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT DTD. 30.05.2016 ANNEX M ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 13TH RESPONDENT DTD. 30.05.2016 ANNEX N ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 14TH RESPONDENT DTD. 30.05.2016 ANNEX O ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 15TH RESPONDENT DTD. 30.05.2016** **2/-** **-2-** **Crl.MC.No. 3422 of 2016 ()** **ANNEX P ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 16TH RESPONDENT DTD. 30.05.2016** **ANNEX Q ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 17TH RESPONDENT DTD. 30.05.2016** **ANNEX R TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2016 IN MC.NO. 1852/2016** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **NIL** **------------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 3422 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 7[th] June, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** The petitioner herein is the 1[st] accused in C.C.No.1855 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class- I, Alappuzha involving offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The 2[nd] respondent herein is the defacto complainant. 2. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner, along with another person named Prince who is arrayed as 2[nd] accused ran a Kuri business in the name 'Anupam Kuries' and after accepting installments from respondents 2 to 17, who are the subscribers, failed to repay the amount. 3. It is sumitted that the disputes have been settled fully and finally and the the parties do not wish or intend that the criminal prosecution should continue. The allegations are purely of a civil nature and as the financial dealings have been settled amicably, it would not be in the Crl.M.C. No.3422 of 2016 -2- interest of justice to continue with the prosecution proceedings. By referring to the affidavits sworn to by respondents 2 to 17, it is submitted that it will only be just and proper to terminate the proceedings as they have affirmed that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner herein. Finally it is submitted that the 2[nd] accused has approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.1852 of 2016 and as per order dated 29.4.2016 the proceedings were quashed. 4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the State has no objection in acting on Annexures B to Q as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not a person with any criminal antecedents. 6. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, Crl.M.C. No.3422 of 2016 -3- influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra. ## 7. **In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC** **303),** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others V State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .** 8. It was held that the 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. It was held that certain Crl.M.C. No.3422 of 2016 -4- categories of cases involving 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 as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this Court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice. 9. After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding Crl.M.C. No.3422 of 2016 -5- despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that continuance of prosecution in the instant case will not yield any result in view of the settlement arrived at. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1855 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class- I, Alappuzha shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-8.6.16