PRADEEP.E & M.K.PRAKASH v. K.M.RAMAKRISHNAN & STATE OF KERALA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/5TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2586 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 1125/2010 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION, KANNUR.** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------------** **1. PRADEEP.E, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN, 'VISHNUMAYA', ERANHOLI, VADIYILPEEDIKA, PERUMTHATTIL, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT** ## **2. M.K. PRAKASH, AGED 50 YEARS,** - **S/O LATE NANU, 'PEGASUS', DHARMADAM P.O, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE:** **------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. K.M.RAMAKRISHNAN,** - **S/O AMMU, 'DEEPTHI', RAMANATTUKARA AMSOM, KARIMKALLAI DESOM, FAROOK COLLEGE P.O.- 673632, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH CORUT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT S HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2586 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE** ## **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE AI A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE THALASSERY. ANNEXURE AII A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CIRME NO 1125 OF 2010 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES. ANNEXURE AIV TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE IST REPSONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE: NIL** **---------------------------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** ## **LSN** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2586 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 26[th] day of June, 2013 ## **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.1125 of 2010 of Thalassery Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420,465 and 468 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure AII in Crime No.1125 of 2010 of Thalassery Police Station as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the complainant and the first accused are co-owners of a property and the first accused wanted the complainant to sell his share in the joint property to him, but the complainant declined the request of the first accused. The further allegation is that one Jaffer has filed a suit as O.S.No.535 of 2009 for specific performance of an agreement for sale, producing an Crl.M.C.No.2586 of 2013 :-2-: agreement said to have been executed by which the complainant agreed to sell his share to the said Jaffer and the attachment in the said suit was lifted on payment of an amount of `5,21,370/-. The complainant further says that later one Sudhikanth has filed suit O.S.No.54 of 2010 before the Munsiff Court, Thalassery for specific performance producing an agreement said to have been executed by the complainant agreeing to sell the undivided share of the complainant to the said Sudhikanth. Thus, according to the complainant, the document is forged for the purpose of producing before the court. 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 first 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 matter is settled amicably Crl.M.C.No.2586 of 2013 :-3-: between the parties to the dispute 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 first 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. Annexure AIII is the agreement entered into between the parties and Annexure AIV is the affidavit sworn to by the first respondent. 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 Crl.M.C.No.2586 of 2013 :-4-: 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 Sections 420,465 and 468 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 first 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 v. Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh 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_ Crl.M.C.No.2586 of 2013 ## :-5-: _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,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_ Crl.M.C.No.2586 of 2013 :-6-: _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. 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, Crl.M.C.No.2586 of 2013 :-7-: 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 - AII FIR in Crime No.1125 of 2010 of Thalassery Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ Crl.M.C.No.2586 of 2013 :-8-: