Rajesh Narayanan @ Pavanan v. State of Kerala and Purushothaman

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2014/18TH ASHADHA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3539 of 2014** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 306/2014 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .....** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** **RAJESH NARAYANAN @ PAVANAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SANKARA NARAYANAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SEE TELEVISION, ANGELINE, T.C.NO.14/1729, VRA 8-10, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** **------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM** ## **2. PURUSHOTHAMAN,** **S/O.BHADRAN, CHIRATHALA VILAKATHU VEEDU, VENGANOOR PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 523** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3539 of 2014** **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **----------------------------------------------** **ANNX.I - COPY OF FIR NO.306/2014 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 13-2-2014.** **ANNX.2 - PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-5-2014 IN CRL.MC NO.906/2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **ANNX.3 - PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ORDER DATED 4-6-2014 IN CRL.MP NO.408/2014 IN CRL.MC NO.906/2014.** ## **ANNX.4 - AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNX.5 - TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS IDENTITY CARD OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **------------------------------------------------** **N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Criminal M.C. No.3539 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of July, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.306/2014 of Museum Police Station of Thiruvananthapuram District, to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner has been arrayed as sole accused in Crime No.306/2014 of Museum Police Station of Thiruvananthapuram District, which was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent before the City Police Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, which was forwarded to the Museum police station for appropriate action, alleging offence under Section 420, 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently during investigation it CRMC.3539/ 2014 2 was revealed that offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, were also committed and they were also incorporated. The petitioner obtained anticipatory bail as per order in Crl.M.C.906/2014, from the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in which it was observed that, no offence under Section 3(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is attracted. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the matter. Since it is in the crime stage, they will not record compounding and drop the proceedings because some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature as well. So the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “It is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set-aside/quash Annexure 1 FIR in Crime No.306/2014 of Museum police station, Thiruvananthapuram and all further proceeding pursuant thereto against the petitioner, for the ends of justice”. CRMC.3539/ 2014 3 3. The 2[nd] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between them and the dispute arose on account of nonpayment of the salary during the period for which the wife was working with the company in which the petitioner is the Managing Director. Now the entire dispute has been dissolved and he has no objection in withdrawing the case. He has filed an affidavit to that effect as well. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, there are other cases against the petitioner alleging offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. So it is not a case to be quashed at this stage. 5. It is an admitted fact that, the wife of the 2[nd] respondent was working under the company in the company of which the petitioner was the managing director. It was also an admitted fact that, there was some dispute regarding payment of salary between the wife of CRMC.3539/ 2014 4 the 2[nd] respondent and the company of which the petitioner was the managing director and when this was asked by the 2[nd] respondent, there was some altercation occurred between them, which resulted to the 2[nd] respondent to file a complaint before the City Police Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, which was forwarded to the Museum police station and the SHO of that police station has registered a case as crime No.306/2014 of Museum police station, originally alleging offence under Section 420 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code alone. Subsequently Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, were also added, though such offences were not added at the time when the first information report was registered. Further, by virtue of the decisions of this court, the words alleged to have been used are not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal CRMC.3539/ 2014 5 Code. Though the Sessions Judge is not expected to pass any observation regarding the commission of offence under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in an application filed for anticipatory bail by the petitioner, it is seen from the order that, the materials available are not sufficient to attract that offence. However, the 2[nd] respondent also has no grievance against the petitioner now and he had filed an affidavit stating these facts. Since the matter has been settled, and it was due to the dispute of non-payment of salary to the wife, the incident happened and now the entire arrears have been paid and they have no grievance against the petitioner, there is no possibility of conviction. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are other number of crimes against the petitioner alleging similar offence of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. CRMC.3539/ 2014 6 7. According, to the counsel for the petitioner, they were were prepared to pay the money, which was obtained from the subscribers and that could not be paid due to the winding of proceedings pending before the court. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is a compoundable offence and the petitioner can compound those cases with those persons later as well. So considering the fact that, it is a dispute between the employer and employee, regarding the payment of salary and that has been settled between the parties, even if the case is allowed to continue, there is no possibility of filing of any final report and even if final report is filed, possibility of conviction in such cases is remote. 8. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “If the matter is of purely civil nature or due to some employer employment relationship and if CRMC.3539/ 2014 7 it is settled between the parties, and the relationship between the parties have been restored, then even if non-compoundable offences have been made out, the court has to invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement, which restored the relationship between the parties”. 9. Further in this case, the offence under Section 3(1) and 294(b) were added later, and on going through the allegations it appears that, it is very difficult to come to a conclusion that, such an offences have been committed as well. So under the circumstances, this court feels that, it is a fit case to invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings and further proceedings of this case will be only a wastage of judicial time and conviction in such cases will be remote and it is necessary to accept the settlement to promote the harmony that has been resulted between the CRMC.3539/ 2014 8 parties. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.306/2014 of Museum police station of Thiruvananthapuram District, as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to inform the same to the concerned police station for necessary further action in this regard. With the above direction and observation, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of. Sd/- ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss