K.V. RAMABHADRAN v. ANNAMMA THOMAS and STATE OF KERALA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/3RD ASWINA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5074 of 2014** **-------------------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 446/2013 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM** **----------------** ## **PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED :** **-------------------------------------** **K.V.RAMABHADRAN, AGED 59 YEARS, ADVOCATE, S/O.VELU, KANNANCHERY HOUSE, P.O.POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT** ## **BY ADV. SRI.AKHIL K.MADHAV** ## **RESPONDENT(S) / COMPLAINANT / STATE :** **----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. ANNAMMA THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS, PERAMBRA HOUSE, THONAMKUZHI KARA, P.O.ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** **THROUGH CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM EAST, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SRIPATHI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **Crl.MC.No. 5074 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE AI : TRUE COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.446/2013 KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AII : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 446/2013 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE AIII: AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5074 of 2014 ------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of September, 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 petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.446 of 2013 of Kottayam East Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 214, 294(b), 506(i) of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-II final report in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioner, being a counsel appointed by accused Murukamma in Crime No.362/13 of Kottayam East Police Station u/s 379 of IPC for theft of a gold chain during bus journey, persuaded the de facto complainant/1[st] respondent, in order to give her statement favourable in court to get the accused released on bail and also to get **Crl.M.C.No.5074 of 2014** 2 the offence compounded, calling her many times from his mobile phone to the mobile phones possessed by her and her husband, and also to her land phone, from 12.5.2013 to 16.5.2013. It is also alleged that the petitioner offered Rs.10,000/- to the 1[st] respondent towards compensation for compounding the offence and also told that an advocate would be appointed to her to get released the stolen property from the custody of court and that the 1[st] respondent rejected the offer and therefore the petitioner threatened and used abusive words to her using his mobile phone and thereby committed the offence 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 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 case, **Crl.M.C.No.5074 of 2014** 3 the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute, which is the subject matter of the above case, as per Annexure-III affidavit of the 1[st] respondent. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case 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 she 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. 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 **Crl.M.C.No.5074 of 2014** 4 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 214, 294(b), 506(i) of I.P.C. 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.5074 of 2014** 5 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.5074 of 2014** 6 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 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-II final report in Crime No.446 of 2013 of 7 ## **Crl.M.C.No.5074 of 2014** Kottayam East Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner thereto. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge