M/S.J.THOMAS & CO. PVT. LTD. v. M/S.VAGHAMON TEA ESTATES and The State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3094 of 2005() ------------------------CC.2569/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: - ------------ 1. M/S.J.THOMAS AND COMPANY PVT. LTD., NILHAT HOUSE, BRISTOW ROAD, KOCHI-682 003. 2. A.CHOWDHURI, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.J.THOMAS & CO.PVT.LTD., NILHAT HOUSE, II R N MUKHERJEE ROAD, POST BOX NO. 69, KOLKATA-700 001. 3. A.GOSH, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.J.THOMAS & CO.PVT.LTD., NILHAT HOUSE, II R N MUKHERJEE ROAD, POST BOX NO. 69, KOLKATA-700 001. 4. A.BATRA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.J.THOMAS & CO. PVT. LTD., NILHAT HOUSE, BRISTOW ROAD, KOCHI-682 003. 5. V.SHANKER, DIRECTOR, M/S.J.THOMAS & CO. PVT. LTD., NILHAT HOUSE, II R N MUKHERJEE ROAD, POST BOX NO. 69, KOLKATA-700 001. 6. V.S.CRISHNA, DIRECTOR, M/S.J.THOMAS & CO. PVT. LTD., II R N MUKHERJEE ROAD, POST BOX NO. 69, KOLKATA-700 001. 7. K.KATYAL, DIRECTOR, M/S.J.THOMAS & CO. PVT. LTD., NILHAT HOUSE, II R.N.MUKHERJEE ROAD, POST BOX NO. 69, KOLKATA-700 001. 8. C.A.MOHAN, DIRECTOR, M/S.J.THOMAS & CO. PVT. LTD., NILHAT HOUSE, II R N MUKERJEE ROAD, POST BOX NO. 69, KOLKATA-700 001. 9. MR.KURIAN PAUL, SENIOR MANAGER, CRMC 3094/05 M/S.J.THOMAS * CO. PVT. LTD., NILHAT HOUSE, BRISTOW ROAD, KOCHI-682 003. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.GEORGE PHILIP SRI.R.ANIL SRI.RAJU RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.DELVIN JACOB MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: - ------------- 1. M/S.VAGHAMON TEA ESTATES REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORISED PARTNER, JOSEPH MATHEW (JR), MANARKATTU BLDGS, PALA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA & SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.11629/2005 IN CRL.M.C. NO.3094 OF 2005 DISMISSED. 17-7-2008 SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ---------------------------------------------CRL.M.C. No.3094 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------Dated, 17[th] July, 2008. ## ORDER The accused in C.C.No. 2569/05 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam are the petitioners before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in which the prayer is to quash Annexure A complaint and all further proceedings in C.C.No.2569/2005 pending before the court below. 2. Annexure A is the complaint filed by the Ist respondent herein for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 463 and 467 read with Sec.34 of IPC. According to the complainant, it is a partnership firm and the Ist accused is a private limited company with registered office at Calcutta engaged in the business of tea auction. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the office bearers of the company and accused Nos. 5 to 8 are its Directors and Accused No.9 is the Senior Manager. There were frequent transaction between the complainant and the accused for the last 20 CRL.M.C.3094/05 ## **-:2:-** years. Based upon the transaction entered into between the parties to the complaint, some dispute arose which culminated in filing Annexure A complaint. I do not propose to go into the details of the disputes and the averments contained in the complaint as the matter has been settled between the parties. Since the matter has been settled, counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure A complaint and all proceedings instituted thereupon may be quashed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the Ist respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2[nd] respondent. While the Crl.M.C. is pending before this Court, the parties to Annexure A complaint entered into an agreement settling the dispute between them. A memo dated 6-7-2008 is filed along with the settlement dated 6-11-2007 signed by both parties and their respective counsel. 4. The learned Counsel for the Ist respondent CRL.M.C.3094/05 ## **-:3:-** submitted that as evidenced in the settlement agreement referred above, the matter has been settled out of court and he has no objection in quashing Annexure A complaint and all proceedings instituted thereon. 5. Going by the averments contained in Annexure A complaint, the dispute seems to be purely personal in nature and no public policy is involved. As the matter has already been settled between the parties, even if the proceedings pending before the court below is allowed to continue, there is no likelihood of a fruitful prosecution and the net result will be a waste of time of the court below. The Apex Court in **Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab** (2008(2) KHC 589 (SC), has held : “It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of CRL.M.C.3094/05 ## **-:4:-** extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise.........”. ## It was also held: “We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law”. 6. In the light of the above settled position of law, and as the matter has already been settled and when there is no possibility for a fruitful prosecution, especially, when CRL.M.C.3094/05 ## **-:5:-** the complainant has no objection in quashing Annexure A complaint., I am of the view that all proceedings pending before the court below can be quashed. In the result, Anneuxre A complaint and C.C. No.2569/2005 instituted thereon and all proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam are quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** kvm/- CRL.M.C.3094/05 ## **-:6:-** V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order Dated: