Koyamma M.P. and Noor Muhammed v. State of Kerala and Central Services Co-Operative Society, Ravipuram, Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 6325 of 2016** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 61/2016 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION** **-----------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 1 & 2 :** **--------------------------------------------------------** **1. KOYAMMA.M.P, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED, MULLAPURA HOUSE, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWP.** **2. NOOR MUHAMMED, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. KUNJI KOYA THANGAL, KOMALAM MARAPURA HOUSE, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWP.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.BIJU SMT.M.B.SHYNI** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT :** **------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. M.R. VASANTHI, AGED 52 YEARS, SECRETARY, CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 016.** **3. CENTRAL SERVICES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, RAVIPURAM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 016.** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **Crl.MC.No. 6325 of 2016** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 61/2016 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE II ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** Msd. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **Crl.M.C. No.6325 of 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of October, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** - 1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in in - C.C.No.524 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offices ) Court Ernakulam. They face allegations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. - 2.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on - 8.12.2015, the 2[nd] petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs.7,50,000/- from the Central Services Co-operative Society of which the 2[nd] respondent is the Secretary by producing forged documents. - 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Crl.M.C. No.6325 of 2016 **-2-** the respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned Public Prosecutor. - 4.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 that the 2[nd] petitioner has settled all the outstanding dues to the Society in respect of loan No.18557 and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, they have no objecting in allowing this petition and in quashing the proceedings. An affidavit has also been sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent wherein it is stated that the Society has no subsisting grievance. - 5.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on a catena of decisions of the Apex Court sought for quashing the proceedings invoking the inherent powers of this Court. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing Crl.M.C. No.6325 of 2016 **-3-** the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. - 7.I have considered the rival submissions. The allegation is that the petitioners had attempted to secure a loan on the strength of forged documents. It is borne out from Annexure-II that the petitioners have made good the loss to the Society and the party respondents have taken a decision not to proceed with the prosecution further. - 8.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Crl.M.C. No.6325 of 2016 **-4-** is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, Crl.M.C. No.6325 of 2016 **-5-** guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 9.Further more, the Apex Court in **CBI, ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain and Others** [2014 (5) SCC 364] has held in paragraph No.11 of the judgment as follows: In the present case, having regard to the fact that the liability to make good the monetary loss suffered by the bank had been mutually settled between the parties and the accused had accepted the liability in this regard, the High Court had thought it fit to invoke its power under S.482 CrPC. We do not see how such exercise of power can be faulted or held to be erroneous. S.482 of the Code inheres in the High Court the power to make such order as may be considered necessary to, inter alia, prevent the abuse of the process of law or to serve the ends of justice. While it will be wholly unnecessary to revert or refer to the settled position in law with regard to the contours of the power available under S.482 CrPC it must be remembered that continuance of a criminal proceeding which is likely to become oppressive or may partake the Crl.M.C. No.6325 of 2016 **-6-** character of a lame prosecution would be good ground to invoke the extraordinary power under S.482 CrPC. 10.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. More over, when the party respondents have settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. - 11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. Crl.M.C. No.6325 of 2016 **-7-** In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-I, final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.524 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offices ) Court Ernakulam are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/17/10/16