Gopalan P. v. Indulekha T.P. and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/27TH SRAVANA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4612 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC. NO.427/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANNUR. ........** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **GOPALAN. P., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KANNAN, EXE. ENGINEER, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, ''SARAVANAM'', PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL, SRI.P.S.BINU.** **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. INDULEKHA T.P., AGED 46 YEARS,** **W/O. GIREESH KUMAR, EXE. ENGINEER, ''KARTHIKA'', THALAP. P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 002.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANEESHA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4612 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.171/2014 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4612 of 2014 ------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of August, 2014.** ## **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 the accused in C.C.No.427 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.171 of 2014 of Kannur Town Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 506(1) of I.P.C. and section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act, with a prayer to quash Annexure I final report and all further proceedings in the above calendar case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that while the de facto complainant was working as Executive Engineer, the accused entered into the office room and caught hold **Crl.M.C.No.4612 of 2014** 2 of her hand with an intention to outrage her modesty and when she told that she will inform her husband, the accused threatened her that he will commit suicide etc. and thereby committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. 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 1[st] 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, as per Annexure II affidavit. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is **Crl.M.C.No.4612 of 2014** 3 the de facto complainant, does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and she 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. 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 354(A), 506(1) of I.P.C. and section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act, 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 **Crl.M.C.No.4612 of 2014** 4 approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 1[st] 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 Gian Singh's 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.” **Crl.M.C.No.4612 of 2014** 5 ## 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 encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is **Crl.M.C.No.4612 of 2014** 6 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 decision 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 final report in Crime No.171 of 2014 of Kannur Town Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.427 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge