## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN**
## **MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/13TH SRAVANA, 1936**
## **Crl.MC.No. 4342 of 2014 ()**
## **--------------------------CMP 6238/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,MATTANNUR ---------**
## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 3:**
**---------------------------------------------------**
**1. JOSHY @ KURIAKOSE, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O CHACKO, MANNAMPLACKIL HOUSE, KOOMANTHODU P.O., AYYANKUNNU AMSOM, KARIKKOTTAKKARI, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN:670 704.**
## **2. VIJAYASREE, AGED 30 YEARS,**
- **W/O JOSHY @ KURIAKOSE, MANNAMPLACKIL HOUSE, KOOMANTHODU P.O., AYYANKUNNU AMSOM, KARIKKOTTAKKARI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN:670 704.**
## **3. M.P.MANOHARAN, AGED 50 YEARS,**
- **S/O KOYODAN KUNJIKKANNAN NAMBIAR, DAR 35, SAR 65, DOCUMENT WRITER, IRITTY, RESIDING SREYAS, KEEZHOOR AMSOM, IRITTY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT PIN:670703.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.AJU MATHEW**
## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :**
**-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------**
## **1. STATE OF KERALA**
**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.**
## **2. LEELA, AGED 53 YEARS**
**W/O BABU, KULAPPARAKKUNNEL, KOOMANTHODE P.O., AYYANKUNNU AMSOM, KARIKKOTTAKKARI, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN:670 704.**
**R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINUCHAND**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**BP**
## **Crl.MC.No. 4342 of 2014 () ---------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**
**-------------------------------------**
**ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AS C.M.P.NO.6238/13 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT MATTANNUR. ANNEXURE A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.389 OF 2013 FILED BY THE KARIKKOTTAKKARI POLICE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANNUR. ANNEXURE A3: ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINT**
**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**P.A. TO JUDGE**
**BP**
## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4342 of 2014 ------------------------------Dated this the 4[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 accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.389 of 2013 of Karikkottakkari Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420 and 465 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 complaint and A2 FIR in the above crime and all proceedings thereunder, as the matter is settled out of court.
2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioners represented the de facto complainant that the 1[st] petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of 10,000 cents in Ayyakunnu amsom and that he is ready to sell the same to the de facto complainant. It is alleged that, believing the offer made by the petitioners, the de
**Crl.M.C.No.4342 of 2014**
2
facto complainant executed an agreement for sale at the office of the 3[rd] petitioner, who is a document writer, and the de facto complainant paid a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/towards the advance sale consideration. The de facto complainant also alleged that on perusal of the copy of the title deed of the aforesaid property, she understood that the same is a forged document and the 1[st] petitioner is not the absolute owner of the said property and hence the petitioners have committed the offences 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 petitioners as well as the 2[nd] 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 which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse
**Crl.M.C.No.4342 of 2014**
3
of process of law and proceedings.
5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] 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 406, 417, 420 and 465 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to
**Crl.M.C.No.4342 of 2014**
4
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 2[nd] 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.4342 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.4342 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 Annexure A1 complaint and A2 FIR in Crime No.389 of 2013 of Karikkottakkari Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in the above crime.
Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.**
ami/
//True copy//
P.A.to Judge
