Neethu v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/6TH KARTHIKA, 1936 Crl.MC.No.5007 of 2014 (D) --------------------------CRIME NO.941/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------ NEETHU, AGED 22 YEARS W/O.SREEJITH P.P., PEROOL, M.M.BAZARM 670306 KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RILGIN V.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------------------------------------------- ## 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. ## 2. BEENA BENNY, AGED 44 YEARS W/O.BENNY, KAIRALI NAGAR, PILATHIRA P.O. KANNUR-670501. 3. TOMIN PAUL, AGED 32 YEARS K.K.HOUSE, KIZHAKKEBAGHAM, KADAVOOR MOOVATTUPUZHA P.O.-686673. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-102014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No.5007 of 2014 (D) ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.941/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2: THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY R3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P. A TO JUDGE. ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5007 Of 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of October, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.941/2014 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur District for offences alleged under Secs.465 and 500 of IPC and under Sec.67 of the IT Act, 2000. The above said crime was registered based on the information preferred on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent herein. The brief of the prosecution case is that before 18.2.2014, the petitioner had created a fake face book account by misusing the details of the defacto complainant and posted porn photos and thus committed the above said offences. 2. The 3[rd] respondent, who is the brother of the 2[nd] respondent-defacto complainant, had submitted Annexure-A1 (5) petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Cyber Cell, Ernakulam Rural, Aluva on 18.2.2014 complaining that face book account of the 2[nd] respondent herein (who is the sister of the 3[rd] respondent) was misused by creating a false face book account and that porn photos were posted therein etc. Pursuant to this, Crime No.597/2014 of Pothanikad Police ::2:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5007 Of 2014** Station was forwarded by the the District Police Chief, Ernakulam to the Office of the District Police Chief, Kannur since it was informed that the place of occurrence of the crime falls within the jurisdiction of Payyannur Police Station. Accordingly, as per Annexure-A1(7), the District Police Chief, Kannur, directed the Station House Officer, Payyannur to reregister the crime and investigate the same expeditiously. It is thereafter, that the case has been re-registered as impugned Crime No.941/2014 of Payyannur Police Station. It is stated that due to intervention of mediators and other respectable persons the matter in dispute between the petitioner and the contesting respondents 2 & 3 have been amicably settled. The 2[nd] respondent who is the defacto complainant has sworn to affidavit dated 26.8.2014 produced as Annexure-A2 in this Crl.M.C stating that the disputes which arose out the Crime No.941/2014 of Payyannur Police Station involving offence under Secs.465 and 500 IPC and Sec.67 of the IT Act have been amicably settled and that the contesting respondents have no objection in quashing the entire impugned proceedings arising out of Crime No.941/2014 of Payyannur Police Station ::3:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5007 Of 2014** etc. It is in the conspectus of these facts and circumstances, the instant Crl.M.C has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings impugned in Crime No.941/2014 of Payyannur Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom. 3. The Crl.M.C has been admitted and Sri.Aneesh Joseph, Advocate, has taken notice for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. 3. Heard Sri.Rilgin V.George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Aneesh Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the controversy have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the judicial, administrative and ::4:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5007 Of 2014** financial resources of the State. 5. Sri.Aneesh Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 & 3 has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 that the respondent Nos.2 & 3 have amicably settled the disputes with the petitioner and have no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner as they have no grievance against her and that they will not raise any dispute/complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 would also submit that the contesting respondents have prudently decided to settled the matter and that they do not wish to proceed any further with the impugned criminal proceedings. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard and submitted that this Court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. 7. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen ::5:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5007 Of 2014** that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy, which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, it is clear to the Court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. 8. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [ See SCC (Cri)]: _“61. 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:- ::6:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5007 Of 2014** “...... _... 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, mercantile, 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........”_ In the decision reported in the case _**Yogendra Yadav & others**_ _**v. The State of Jharkhand & another**_ reported in 2014 (8) Scale 634 = III (2014) Current Criminal Reports CCR 426 (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows: _“When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them”._ The Apex Court in the above case was dealing with a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes between the ::7:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5007 Of 2014** disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for. ::8:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5007 Of 2014** In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed and the impugned proceedings in Crime No.941/2014 of Payyannur Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom against the accused in the said Crime stand quashed. The petitioner shall forward certified copies of this order to the Station House Officer concerned as well as to the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/-