Midhun Thomas, Sajeev @ Saji, and Manesh @ Manju v. State of Kerala and Valsamma James

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014/10TH SRAVANA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4245 of 2014** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 105/2014 OF VAKATHANAM POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT** ## **--------------------** ## **PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 3 :** **--------------------------------------------------** ## **1. MIDHUN THOMAS, AGED 25 YEARS,** - **S/O.THOMAS MATHAI, VADAKKEKUTTU HOUSE, VATTAPPALLY, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, VAKATHANAM TALUK FROM KOTTAMALA VEEDU, KALLUMADA, AAYMANAM KARA, AYMANAM VILLAGE.** **2. SAJEEV @ SAJI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL SAMAD, CHARUVILA PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, POREDAM MURI, MOTTAKKUNNAM, CHADAYAMANGALAM.** **3. MANESH @ MANJU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, PERUNNELPARAMBIL VEEDU, THALEKKULAM, THOTTAKKATTU KARA, KARUKACHAL VILLAGE, VAKATHANAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS / STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2. VALSAMMA JAMES, AGED 56 YEARS,** - **W/O.JAMESKUTTY, PUTHNPURAKKALAYA CHETHIMATTAM HOUSE, R.K.PADY BHAGAM, THOTTAKKADU VILLAGE - 689645.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **Crl.MC.No. 4245 of 2014 ----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.105/2014 OF VAKATHANAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2: AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4245 of 2014 ------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of August, 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 petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.105 of 2014 of Vakathanam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(1), 386 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 FIR and further proceedings pending against the petitioners in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 12.2.2014 at about 6.15 a.m., while one Sabu was removing soil from the property of the de facto complainant using a JCB, the accused persons with an intention to exhort money from the de facto complainant **Crl.M.C.No.4245 of 2014** 2 trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant and intimidated her and her son using abusive language and threatened by the act of the accused persons, she gave an amount of Rs.2,000/- to them and as such, the petitioners have committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent. 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 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 case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is **Crl.M.C.No.4245 of 2014** 3 the de facto complainant, does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she has no grievance against them. 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 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 447, 294(b), 506(1), 386 r/w 34 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 **Crl.M.C.No.4245 of 2014** 4 made by the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has 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 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.4245 of 2014** 5 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 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.4245 of 2014** 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 A1 FIR in Crime No.105 of 2014 of Vakathanam Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in the above crime. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge