E T Jisha v. State of Kerala and A. Prasanth Kumar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/16TH SRAVANA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3285 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 175/2008 of J.M.F.C.-V,KOZHIKODE CRIME NO. 246/2006 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** **--------------------** **E T JISHA AGED 37 YEARS W/O. ARAVINDHAKSHAN, VAPPANAYIL HOUSE CHERUVANNOOR AMSOM, KUNDAYITHODE P.O., KOLATHARA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. A.PRASANTH KUMAR S/O. CHANDRAN, ANJILLATH HOUSE, KOLATHARA KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEDEV BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 3285 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**: COPY OF THE FIR IN THE ABOVE CRIME NO.246/06 OF**| |---|---| ||**NALLALAM POLICE STATION, DTD.6.11.2006.**| |**ANNAEXURE A2**|**: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN THE ABOVE**| ||**CRIME DTD.16.4.2008.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**: COPY OF THE RECEIPT SO ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT DTD.14.12.2009.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**: AFFIDAVIT DTD.15.6.2013 SWORN BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT.**| **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 3285 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 7th day of August, 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.175/2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.246/2006 of Nallalam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A2 final report in C.C.No.175 of 2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner/accused may be acquitted as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation against the accused in the complaint is that she borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the de facto complainant agreeing to return it in 3 months and when demanded later she issued a cheque dated 20.3.2006 drawn on the Catholic Syrian Bank forging her signature and this 2 **Crl.M.C.No. 3285 of 2013** cheque when presented for collection was returned for the reason 'drawers signature differs' and thus cheated the complainant and committed forgery and that in spite of a notice demanding payment she has not discharged the liability. Thus according to the prosecution the petitioner/accused has committing the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioner/accused is that the entire dispute is settled with the 2nd respondent who is the de facto complainant. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent de facto complainant has sworn into Annexure -A4 affidavit. Annexure-A3 receipt is produced to show that the de facto complainant has received the amount in terms of the settlement. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as 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 3 **Crl.M.C.No. 3285 of 2013** 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 he has no grievance against her. 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 involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC 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 4 **Crl.M.C.No. 3285 of 2013** second respondent, it appears to me that the injured/the victim/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 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 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,_ 5 **Crl.M.C.No. 3285 of 2013** _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. 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 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 6 **Crl.M.C.No. 3285 of 2013** 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 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.175/2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode. **V.K.MOHANAN Judge** mns/ **Crl.M.C.No. 3285 of 2013** 7