P.P. Johnson v. State of Kerala and HDFC Bank Limited

## **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. 3631 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC. NO.298/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ERNAKULAM. ........** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **P.P. JOHNSON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.POONOOLIL RICE & FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, ERUMATHALA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT POONOLIL HOUSE, TANNIPUZHA, OKKAL (PO), KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH, SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY, SRI.M.M.SHAJAHAN, SMT.SAVITHA GANAPATHIYATAN.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY ITS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., KOCHI-682 018.** ## **2. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MATHER SQUARE,** **OPP: NORTH RAILWAY STATION, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR.SANTHOSH THOMAS KUNNAL.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H. JASMINE. R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC BANK LTD.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-09-2013, ALONG WITH CRMC. NO. 3632 OF 2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3631 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE-A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED THEREIN CRL.M.P.NO.2636/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT(I) ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE-A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE FILED IN CC NO.298/2012, ISSUED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (I), ERNAKULAM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos. 3631,3632,3679 & 3680 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 12[th] day of September, 2013 ## **O R D E R** As the parties to the above four Crl.M.Cs. are one and the same and the facts are identical in nature and the offences alleged are also same and especially when the entire dispute is settled between the parties, the above four Crl.M.Cs. are heard together, though the same are directed against different calendar cases pending before the same court below and being disposed of by this common order. 2. The subject matter of the cases pending before the court below is that connected the purchase of vehicle, the accused availed of loan from the second respondent/the de facto complainant and thereafter the accused defaulted in making the monthly instalments and thus, according to the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent in the above Crl.M.Cs., the petitioner/accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. Stating the above allegation, the second respondent filed separate private complaints before the court below which Crl.M.C.Nos.3631,3632,3679 & 3680 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** were forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and eventually, the Police filed separate charge sheets in four crimes and thus, C.C.No.298/2012, 299/2012, L.P.No.81/2010 and C.C.No.300/2012 are instituted against which respectively Crl.M.C.Nos. 3631,3632,3679 & 3680 of 2013 are filed. Now, the case of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the above cases, the entire dispute is settled with the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent and acknowledging the above claim of the petitioner/accused, the Manager(Legal) of the second respondent/Bank/ the de facto complainant filed separate affidavits dated 29.8.2013 and 30.8.2013 in the above petitions. From the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it appears that the entire prosecution is originated connected with the financial transaction with respect to the purchase of four separate vehicles and now, the parties to the dispute settled both the criminal and civil liabilities. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.Nos.3631,3632,3679 & 3680 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above cases, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above cases. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above cases is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the second 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 they have 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 cases are only Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is Crl.M.C.Nos.3631,3632,3679 & 3680 of 2013 :-4-: 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 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 which 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 predominatingly 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_ Crl.M.C.Nos.3631,3632,3679 & 3680 of 2013 :-5-: _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 cases and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present cases, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present cases. Thus, I am of the view that 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, these Criminal M.Cs can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are allowed, quashing all proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.298/2012,299/2012, Crl.M.C.Nos.3631,3632,3679 & 3680 of 2013 :-6-: L.P.No.81/2010 and C.C.No.300 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/