Jacob Thomas v. Muthoot Papachan Group and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/7TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1341 of 2014** **----------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1219/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 1765/2010 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **----------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------------** **JACOB THOMAS, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, FLAT NO.12A, PANJOSE GARDEN, PAADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **-------------------------** ## **1. MUTHOOT PAPACHAN GROUP,** **MUTHOOT CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, MR.WILSON K JOSEPH, PIN-695005.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 1341 of 2014** **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-1. CRIME NO.1765/2010 REGISTERED BY THE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-2. COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.1765/2010 REGISTERED BY THE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, NOW PENDING AS CC 1219/2013 ON THE FILE OF JFCMC-1, ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEXURE-3. AFFIDAVIT DATED OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES --------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1341 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the sole accused in C.C.1219/2013 on the file of the Judicial Fist Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam, to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the ‘Code’). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the accused in C.C.1219/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam. The case was originated on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent through their authorised officer, against the petitioner, alleging offence under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act, 2011. After investigation, Annexure-A2 2 Crl.M.C. No.1341 of 2014 final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.1219/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The defacto-complainant does not want to proceed with the prosecution. Since the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they could not file application before the court below. So the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure-1 FIR and Annexure-A2 Final Report as well as the proceedings in CC. 1219 of 2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam and allow this Criminal MC.” 3. First respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not want to proceed against the petitioner. So they have no objection in quashing the proceedings. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on Crl.M.C. No.1341 of 2014 3 instructions submitted that, except this case, there is no other case against the petitioner, but opposed the application. 5. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of a complaint given by the first respondent, Palarivattom Police had registered Annexure-1 first information report, as Crime No.1765/2010 of Palarivattom Police Station, against the petitioner, originally alleging offence under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Thereafter, after investigation Annexure-II, final report was filed, alleging offence under Section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act alone and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.1219/2013 for the said offence alone by the learned magistrate. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. It appears that, there was some labour dispute between the employees and the management and now that has been settled between the parties. So, the first respondent company does not want to proceed against the petitioner, as the dispute has been Crl.M.C. No.1341 of 2014 4 settled between them. So on account of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding the case as well. 6. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)]** , it has been held that: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case an no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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 mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or the family disputes where the wrong Crl.M.C. No.1341 of 2014 5 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question (s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. Though, the offence under the Police Act was incorporated, it appears from the circumstances that, it is purely a private dispute between the petitioner and the officials of the first respondent company. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that, in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction being entered against the petitioner and directing the trial to continue will only be a wastage of judicial time, this court feels that, the case can be quashed, invoking the power under Section 482 of the 'Code'. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crl.M.C. No.1341 of 2014 6 C.C.No.1219/2013 (Crime No.1765/2010 of Palarivattom Police Station), pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam, as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss