Deepuraj V.J. v. State of Kerala and Prabhakaran Nair

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2013/18TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2814 of 2013** **---------------------------------[CRIME NO. 52/2013 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT]** **..................** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **DEEPURAJ.V.J, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.VELAPPAN NAIR.K, T.C 21/1783(1), RAJ BHAVAN, SOMAN NAGAR, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. PRABHAKARAN NAIR,** **S/O.GOPINATHA PILLAI, T.C 2/1643, UTHRADAM, GOWREESAPATTAM, PATTAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA, R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.ZOHRA.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.2814/2013:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** - **ANNEXURE I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.52/2013 OFD KARAMANA POLICE STATION.** - **ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 29/3/2012 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.** **ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S 52/2013 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/1/2013 IN IA 220/2013 IN O.S 52/2013 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **ANNEXURE V: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO IA 220/2013 IN OS 52/2013.** - **ANNEXURE VI: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.** - **ANNEXURE VII: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/2/2013 IN CRL.M.C 126/2013 OF SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTRHAPURAM.** - **ANNEXURE VIII: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 6/6/2013 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **-----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2814 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 09[th] day of July, 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 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.52 of 2013 of Karamana Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 & 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 13 and 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 with a prayer to quash Annexure-I proceedings in Crime No.52 of 2013 of Karamana Police Station pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution case is that, the de facto complainant borrowed an amount of `5,00,000/- from the petitioner/accused during the month of April, 2012 and he was paying interest @ `75,000/- per month and on 30/12/2012 the de facto complainant had returned an amount of `5,00,000/- to ## Crl.M.C.No.2814 of 2013 :-2-: the accused and in spite of the said fact the accused has not repaid the original title deed of 8 cents of property belonging to the de facto complainant, the tax receipt and two signed stamp papers and ledger papers, which were given by the de facto complainant as security for the loan and thus the petitioner/accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. According to the petitioner, connected with the above transaction a suit was also filed by the petitioner as O.S.No.52 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapruam for specific performance of Annexure-II agreement and for injunction and thus, while so the matter is settled out of court between the parties. Annexure-VIII is the affidavit sworn into by the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. ## Crl.M.C.No.2814 of 2013 :-3-: 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 2[nd] 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 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-VIII affidavit. 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 involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved Crl.M.C.No.2814 of 2013 :-4-: in the above case are only under Sections 468, 471 & 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 13 and 17 of Money Lenders Act, 1958 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 2[nd] 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 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 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 ## Crl.M.C.No.2814 of 2013 :-5-: 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 is the duty of this Court to promote and Crl.M.C.No.2814 of 2013 :-6-: 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-I proceedings in Crime No.52 of 2013 of Karamana Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge