K.S. Achilles et al. v. Dr Azeez E.V & State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/5TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2488 of 2013** **--------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 446/2011 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY CRIME NO. 600/2009 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION , KANNUR** **--------------** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. K.S.ACHILLES, AGED 29 YEARS,** - **S/O.SUDHAN, KUDILINGAL HOUSE, CHAKKARAPPATTAM, PERINJANAM PANCHAYATH, TRISSUR.** **2. PRABHASANKAR @ PRABHA ,AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, KOOLATHARA HOUSE, PENTHRAPANI, VALAPPADU, EDATHURUTHI PANCHAYATH, TRISSUR.** **3. ARJUN JYOTHI, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.E.V.JYOTHI, IZHUVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURUNILAVU CHIRACKAL, THRIPRAYAR, TRISSUR.** **4. NITHIN SASI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, KOTTUVALA HOUSE, KOLAZHI, NEAR CENTRAL JAIL, TRISSUR.** **5. C.P.SHINOJ KUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.C.K.PUSHPAN, CHORATTIL HOUSE, NEAR FIRE STATION, TRISSUR.** **6. K.BINOY, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, ASWATHI NIVAS, KAVILPPATTU, PUTHUPARIYARAM PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD.** **7. ABHILASH HARIDAS, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.HARIDAS, RESIDING AT KAVITHA CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD TOWN, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR** **PJ** **...2/-** **..2..** **Crl.MC.No. 2488 of 2013** ## **---------------------------------** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED WITNESS & STATE:** - **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. DR.AZEEZ E.V, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.ALI HAJI, JAMSHEER HOUSE, M.S.ROAD, CHIRAKKARA.P.O., THALASSERRY.** **2. DR.V.P.MUHAMMED HAMSHEER, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.AZEEZ.E.V, JAMSHEER HOUSE, M.S.ROAD CHIRAKKARA.P.O., THALASSERRY.** **3. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 682 031.** **R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JOSEPH BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 2488 of 2013** **---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.600 OF 2009, DATED 14.10.2009.** **ANNEXURE 2- TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.600 OF 2009 OF THE THALASSERY POLICE STATION DATED 31.3.2010.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **TRUE COPY** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2488 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[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 petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 7 in S.C.No.446 of 2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.600 of 2009 of Thalassery Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of IPC with a prayer to quash Annexure-2 Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.446 of 2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that one Minu Joseph, native of Thrissur wanted to secure admission for the MBBS Course at Lakshmi Narayana College, Pondicheri and she approached petitioners 1 and 2 who were running a consultancy firm by name “Guidant Marketing India Crl.M.C.No.2488 of 2013 :-2-: Pvt. Ltd” at Thrissur. The petitioners 1 and 2 in turn was assured by the 2[nd] respondent, who was working at Chennai that he would secure admission for Minu Joseph. According to the allegation, as demanded by the 2[nd] respondent a sum of `3,00,000/- and a D.D. for a sum of `1,00,000/- drawn in the name of the Institution entrusted with the 2[nd] respondent. But the 2[nd] respondent could not secure the admission on the ground that the College Authorities were demanding a larger package. Further allegation is that, petitioners 1 and 2 on the belief that the 2[nd] respondent was responsible for causing loss to their concern went to Chennai and detained the 2[nd] respondent in a hotel room and they had harassed the 2[nd] respondent demanding the money and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 364-A of IPC. The first respondent is the de facto complainant and the 2[nd] respondent is the alleged victim. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter has been settled out of court and accordingly respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate affidavits. Crl.M.C.No.2488 of 2013 :-3-: 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents 1 and 2. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents 1 and 2, who are the de facto complainant and the victim do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against them. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and Crl.M.C.No.2488 of 2013 :-4-: materials produced along with the above petition including affidavits. 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 Section 364-A 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 respondents 1 and 2, it appears to me that the de facto complainant and the victim have 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 Crl.M.C.No.2488 of 2013 :-5-: ## 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2488 of 2013 :-6-: 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 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 decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. Crl.M.C.No.2488 of 2013 :-7-: In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-2 Final Report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.446 of 2011 on the file of the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge