Goutham Reddy and Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Sadanandan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/20TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1635 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------C.C. NO. 2870/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA.** **............** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------------** **1. GOUTHAM REDDY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.RAJMOHAN REDDY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, K M C CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., PERAMBRA, KODAKARA, THRISSUR.** ## **2. SREEKUMAR, AGED 64 YEARS,** **S/O.K.G.NAIR, CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER, DO. DO. DO.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **2. SADANANDAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.CHULLIPARAMBIL RAMAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTANELLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA. R2 BY ADV. SMT.ATHIRA.A MENON.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1635 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.461/2011 IN KODAKARA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.461/2011 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 05/04/2013 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 1635 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 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 petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No. 2870 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 461 of 2011 of Kodakara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 278, 290, 387, 379,424, 426,427,431, 435,436 and 447 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A2 final report in Crime No.461 of 2011 of Kodakara Police Station and all consequent proceedings thereto in C.C.No.2870 of 2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that one KMC Crl.M.C.No.1635 of 2013 :-2-: Constructions Ltd. is operating a granite quarry and metal crusher unit adjacent to the property of the de facto complainant and he has been objecting the same and due to this reason,the accused became inimical towards the de facto complainant and the accused and their workers trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant and committed mischief on 8.3.2011 and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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 process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent, who on the Crl.M.C.No.1635 of 2013 :-3-: 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 petitioners and he has no grievance against them. 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 120B, 278, 290, 387, 379,424, 426,427,431, 435,436 and 447 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 Crl.M.C.No.1635 of 2013 :-4-: 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 second respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex v. Court reported in **Gian Singh 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 proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be_ ## Crl.M.C.No.1635 of 2013 :-5-: _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 predominatingly 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........”_ 8. According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of Crl.M.C.No.1635 of 2013 :-6-: 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 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 in Crime No.461 of 2011 of Kodakara Police Station and all consequent proceedings thereto in C.C.No.2870 of 2011 on the file Crl.M.C.No.1635 of 2013 :-7-: of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ ## Crl.M.C.No.1635 of 2013 :-8-: