Muraleedharan and P. Sreedharan v. State of Kerala and Noufal

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** # **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/21ST BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4029 of 2013 ()** **-----------------------------------CRIME NO. 800/2012 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT .........** **PETITIONER(S):ACCUSED --------------------------------------** **1. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 44 YEARS, MANAGER, SREE VAIRAMKODE DEVASWAM VYRANKODE P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. P.SREEDHARAN, AGED 61 YEARS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE VAIRAMKODE DEVASWAM, VYRANKODE P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO - COMPLAINANT(S):** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM(REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR.)** **2. NOUFAL,AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SAIDALU, VELLARIKKATTIL HOUSE, KANMANAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE R2 BY ADV. SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **CRMC. NO.4029/2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **A:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE JFCM COURT, TIRUR AS CMP.NO.5419/2012.** **B:- COPY OF THE F.I.R. REGISTERED BY TIRUR POLICE IN CRIME NO.800/2012 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION.** **C:- AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DTD. 10.9.2013.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES** **NIL** **TRUE COPY** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4029 of 2013 -----------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of September, 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 the accused in Crime No.800 of 2012 of Tirur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 & 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A complaint and Annexure-B F.I.R. in Crime No.800 of 2012 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram District as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution allegation in brief is that the second respondent being a professional videographer, was entrusted with the responsibility of video-graphing the famous festival of Vairankode temple known as 'Theeyyat Ulsavam' during the year 2009. It was agreed by the then Executive Officer of the Vairankode Devaswam that the video CD will be sold at a rate of `100/- per CD and out of which `80/- will be paid to the second respondent. Second respondent has recorded the festival incurring huge expenses and entrusted 2000 CDs to ## Crl.M.C.No.4029 of 2013 :-2-: the first petitioner. However, apart from a sum of `5,000/- the petitioners did not pay any further amount to the second respondent. Whenever the second respondent approached the petitioners, they were reiterating that the CDs are not being sold. However, later, second respondent has been informed that the entire CDs except a few were sold out and with the knowledge of the petitioners, huge amounts were withdrawn in the name of the second respondent through Bank accounts by forging the signature of the second respondent. On further enquiry, it is given to understand that the cheques were issued in the name of the second respondent and which were encashed by the petitioners, by forging the signature of the second respondent. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused two in numbers have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 & 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. Now, according to the petitioners, the dispute is settled with the second respondent, who has sworn into Annexure-C affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well Crl.M.C.No.4029 of 2013 :-3-: 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 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 2[nd] 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 petitioners and he 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 including 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 Crl.M.C.No.4029 of 2013 :-4-: 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, 465, 468 & 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 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 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 ## Crl.M.C.No.4029 of 2013 ## :-5-: 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 circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum ## Crl.M.C.No.4029 of 2013 :-6-: 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. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-A complaint and Annexure-B F.I.R. in Crime No.800 of 2012 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram District and all further proceedings thereto. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj