K. Madhusoodanan Namboodiri v. State of Kerala and Sunil Kumar N.B. and Suja

## **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. 2178 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC no.398/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHITTUR** **....** **CRIME NO. 245/2008 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD** **....** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** **K.MADHUSOODANAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O.K.N.DAMODHARAN NAMBOODIRI, KOUNGAPILLI ILLAM, VADAVANNUR, OOTTARA, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN 682 031.** ## **2. SUNIL KUMAR N.B.,** **S/O.LATE BAHULEYAN, RESIDING AT NOTTACHAM VELIKKAKATHU, KARUTHEDAM DESAM, ELAMKUNNAPPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 042.** ## **3. SUJA,** **W/O.SUNIL KUMAR, NOTTACHAM VELIKKAKATHU, KARUTHEDAM DESAM, ELAMKUNNAPPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 042.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.T.SHEEBA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** **Crl.MC.No. 2178 of 2013 --------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE:**| |---| |**-------------------------------------------**| |**ANNEXURE-1:**<br>**FINAL REPORT IN C.C.398/2008.**| |**ANNEXURE-2:**<br>**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-3:**<br>**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE:**| |**---------------------------------------------**<br>**N I L**| **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2178 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 petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.398 of 2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No. 243/2008 of Kozhinjampara Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.398/2008 pending before the JFCM court, Chittur, arisen out of Crime No.243/2008, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioner who is a temple priest approached the 2[nd] respondent and his wife and offered to conduct various 'poojas' for fulfilling their dreams to have a baby and obtained `38,000/- and 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments for that purpose. But the 2[nd] respondent and his wife did not get back the ornaments from the petitioner, after the 2 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2178 of 2013** poojas, as assured by the petitioner. Now, the petitioner had returned the entire amount to the 2[nd] respondent and the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. 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 crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, who on the basis of specific instruction received from them has submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainants do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and they have no grievance against him. 6. I have carefully considered the above 3 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2178 of 2013** 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 and 420 of IPC, 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 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, it appears to me that the the de facto complainants have 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 Honourable Apex Court reported 4 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2178 of 2013** ## in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], in which 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.” 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 5 **Crl.M.C.No.2178 of 2013** 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. 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 in 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2178 of 2013** granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure - 1 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 398 of 2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge