K.S. Sreekumar v. Subrahmanyan & State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/29TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2502 of 2013** **---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO.1340/2012 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM** **.....** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------** ## **K.S.SREEKUMAR,** **S/O.SREEDHARA MENON, 'AISWARYA', POONITHURA VILLAGE, VYTTILA P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. SUBRAHMANYAN, S/O.KUTTAN, PUTHANPARAMBIL HOUSE, EROOR DESOM, NADAMA VILLAGE, EROOR TALUK, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 306.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI JOSEPH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** **Crl.MC.No. 2502 of 2013** ## **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **---------------------------------------------** ## **ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1340/2012 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, THRIPUNITHURA.** **ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 91/2011 OF THE COURT OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, ERNAKULAM, DT.24-10-2011.** **ANNEXURE C: THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT INFORMING THIS HONOURABLE COURT OF THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT/COMPROMISE BETWEEN PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: N I L** **-------------------------------------------------** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2502 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 19[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 petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.1340 of 2012 of Hill Palace Police Station, Thripunithura which is a crime registered against the petitioner for the non-compliance of the terms of agreement in Annexure-B for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a prayer to quash Annexue-A F.I.R. and all further proceedings in Crime No.1340 of 2012 of Hill Palace Police Station, Thripunithura as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, in a transaction between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, who belonged to Scheduled Caste community, he borrowed an amount of `3,00,000/- from the petitioner and he ## Crl.M.C.No.2502 of 2013 :-2-: executed sale deed of his property having an extent of 3.5 cents with a house of 1050 square feet thereon comprised in Survey No.514/2 of Nadama Village as security for the said amount in favour of the accused and further allegation is that the accused/petitioner had effected mutation on the above property prior to 24/4/2010 using the sale deed without proper consideration and thus the petitioner has committed the offences. Now the case of the petitioner is that, though connected with the above transaction dispute arose and the first respondent/de facto complainant herein preferred a suit before the first Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam with a prayer to set aside the sale of the property referred above and during the pendency of the above suit the matter is settled amicably. The suit filed by the petitioner against the first respondent, which was pending as O.S.No.91 of 2011 and the matter was settled as per Annexure-B settlement arrived at the District Mediation Centre, Ernakulam and therefore according to the petitioner this Crl.M.C. can be disposed of quashing Annexure- Crl.M.C.No.2502 of 2013 :-3-: A crime pending against the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 1[st] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, during the pendency of the above crime, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 1[st] 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 petitioner and he has no grievance against him. 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 including Crl.M.C.No.2502 of 2013 :-4-: Annexure-B agreement and Annexure-C affidavit. 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 420 of IPC and 3(1) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 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 1[st] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has 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 :-5-: ## Crl.M.C.No.2502 of 2013 ## reported in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108 ## (SC)] in 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 :-6-: ## Crl.M.C.No.2502 of 2013 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 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.2502 of 2013 :-7-: In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexue-A F.I.R. and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No.1340 of 2012 of Hill Palace Police Station, Thripunithura. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge