Jacob N.A. v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/23RD JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2118 of 2013** **----------------------------------CRIME NO. 221/2013 OF KANJAR POLICE STATION , IDUKKI --------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------** **JACOB.N.A., S/O.AUGUSTINE,AGED 56 YEARS, NADACKAL HOUSE, MUTTOM KARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI KURIAN SRI.T.J.MICHAEL** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.** ## **2. SOJAN.P.AUGUSTINE,** **S/O.AUGUSTINE, POOVATHINKAL HOUSE, NEELOOR KARA, KADANADU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 651.** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VIPIN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2118 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** - **ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.221/13 OF KANJAR POLICE STATION DATED 4/3/2013.** - **ANNEXURE II:TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.221/13 DATED 4/3/2013.** - **ANNEXURE III: A COPY OF THE REPORT OF SI OF POLICE, KANJAR INCORPORATING SECTIION 420 OF IPC DATED 4/3/13.** **ANNEXURE IV: AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SHOWING THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IN QUASHING THE FIR DATED 21/5/2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** ## **TRUE COPOY** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2118 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of June, 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 in Crime No.221 of 2013 of Kanjar Police Station, Idukki which is a case instituted upon a complaint filed by the second respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 506(i) & 294(b) of IPC and Section 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 with a prayer to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No.221 of 2013 of Kanjar Police Station, Idukki as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case against the petitioner is that, when the de facto complainant failed to repay the amount borrowed by him from the petitioner, he trespassed into the shop room of the de facto complainant and thus committed the said offences. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. Crl.M.C.No.2118/2013 :-2-: 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 crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of 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 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 which is Crl.M.C.No.2118/2013 :-3-: marked as Annexure-IV notarized 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 in the above case are only under Sections 448, 506(i) & 294(b) of IPC and Section 17 of Kerala 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 second 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 Crl.M.C.No.2118/2013 :-4-: 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 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from_ Crl.M.C.No.2118/2013 :-5-: _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. 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 Crl.M.C.No.2118/2013 :-6-: 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 all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No.221 of 2013 of Kanjar Police Station in Idukki Distinct. Sd/- ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. To Judge