Irikannoth Sreedharan and others v. P.K. Gouri @ Gouri Aravind and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/3RD BHADRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4822 of 2014** **---------------------------------[CRIME NO. 529/2011 ON THE FILE OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT]** **............** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5:** **------------------------------------------------------** **1. IRIKANNOTH SREEDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 44 YEARS, CHERIYA POYYAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KADACHIRA - 670 621.** **2. POYYAYIL KADAYAPRATH VASUDEVAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 48 YEARS, DRIVER, CHERIYA POYYAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KADACHIRA - 670 621.** **3. POYYAYIL KADAYAPRATH JANARDHANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 57 YEARS, BUSINESS, CHERIYA POYYAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KADACHIRA - 670 621.** **4. VALAPPILEKKANDY BYJU, S/O.MUKUNDAN, COOLIE WORKER, KADUMBUR AMSOM, ORIKKARA DESOM, KANNUR TALUK.** **5. MADATHIYEDATH SANILKUMAR, S/O.MUKUNDAN, WELDER, KOTTUR, EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. P.K.GOURI @ GOURI ARAVIND, W/O.ARAVIND, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'NALINI NIVAS', PALLIKKUNNU P.O., NEAR SREEPURAM NURSERY, KANNUR - 670 004.** **...2/-** **Prv.** **:-2-:** ## **CRL.M.C.NO. 4822 OF 2014:** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 006, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADVS. SMT.MARY RANZOM LOUIZ, SMT.AMAL SARAH EIPE, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C.NO. 4822 OF 2014:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE-A1: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY DT.28.10.2011. ANNEXURE-A2: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R REGISTERED BY THE EDAKKAD POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-A3: THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT DT.29.7.2014.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4822 of 2014** **------------------------------Dated this the 25[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 petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.529 of 2011 of Edakkad Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 471, 473 r/w section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings pending against the petitioners in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 6.11.2009, the accused in the above crime had started construction in a property having an extent of 21 cents situated in Kadachira in Kadambur amsom (having RS No.4A1A), in which the de facto complainant has coownership, claiming that the same is their property. **Crl.M.C.No.4822 of 2014** 2 According to the de facto complainant, on further enquiry it is revealed that, by producing a stranger before the Sub Registrar claiming to be the de facto complainant/coowner, got executed a partition deed, by playing fraud in the SRO and the accused persons deliberately created the false document to cheat the de facto complainant colluding with the witnesses and thereby committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution. 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 1[st] 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, as per Annexure A3 affidavit sworn into by the de facto complainant dated 29.7.2014. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. **Crl.M.C.No.4822 of 2014** 3 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 the de facto complainant, does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she 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 417, 420, 465, 471, 473 r/w section 34 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. **Crl.M.C.No.4822 of 2014** 4 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 1[st] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/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.4822 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 pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of **Crl.M.C.No.4822 of 2014** 6 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 the entire proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.529 of 2011 of Edakkad Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge