Rajkumar s/o Thottiyil Parameswaran v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2013/19TH ASHADHA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 53 of 2013 () ------------------------OS 196/2008 of SUB COURT,TIRUR** **IN CC 200/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT - I, PONNANI** ## **PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------** **RAJKUMAR S/O. THOTTIYIL PARAMESWARAN, THOTTIYIL HOUSE EZHAVATHURUTHI AMSOM DESOM, EZHAVATHURUTHI PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ** ## **RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:** **--------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2. SUBAIDA, S/O. NOORAYIGANAKATH MUHAMMED.** **3. RAMSHAD, S/O. SUBAIDA.** **4. RISHANA, S/O. SUBAIDA.** **5. RAHEESH,S/O. SUBAIDA (MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT MOTHER SUBAIDA) RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NOORAYIGANAKATH HOUSE EZHAVATHURUTHI AMSOM, ERIKKAMANNA DESOM EZHAVATHURUTHI P.O - 676523, PONNANI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **Crl.MC.No. 53 of 2013 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** |**ANNEXURE**|**1:**|**COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 2/2/2009.**| |---|---|---| |**ANNEXURE**|**2:**|**COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.80/2009 OF**| |||**PONNANI POLICE DT 2/2/2009.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**3:**|**COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. 200/2009**| |||**DT 16/4/2009.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**4:**|**COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION IN**| |||**O.S. 196/2008 BEFORE THE SUB COURT TIRUR**| |||**DT 23/9/2010**| ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JDUGE** ## **BP** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 53 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of July, 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 petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.80 of 2009 of Ponnani police station, pending as C.C.No.200 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Ponnani, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 415, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC, with a prayer to quash Crime No.80 of 2009 of Ponnani police station, now pending as C.C.No.200 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Ponnani, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of the petitioner is that respondent ## **Crl.M.C.No.2589 of 2013** :-2-: nos.2 to 5 made believe the petitioner that 4½ cents of property and the building comprising there in R.Sy. 135/2, 154/1 of Ezhavathuruthi Amsom Desom belonged to them and that they intended to sell the above property. The further allegation against the accused, who are respondent nos.2 to 5 is that, they had made the petitioner believe that an amount of `50,000/- was received by them as security deposit from the tenants of the premises of the respondents and that the tenants are paying `10,000/- as monthly rent to respondent nos.2 to 5. According to the petitioner, it is subsequently realised that what all representation made by accused are false and the same are made with an intention to cheat him. Thus, altogether, the petitioner had paid a sum of `5 lakhs to the respondents and also made payments subsequent to that, and thus they have committed offences punishable under sections 406, 415, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled ## **Crl.M.C.No.2589 of 2013** :-3-: out of court and they have entered into compromise as evident from Annexure-4. According to the petitioner, connected with the above transaction, a suit was filed by him as O.S.No.196/08 in the Sub court, Tirur, and during the pendency of the above suit, the matter was settled at the Legal Services Authority at Tirur, and consequently they arrived in Annexure-4 settlement. The counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents submitted that in the light of Annexure-4 settlement, the proceedings against respondent nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.200/09 pending before the Munsiff Magistrate's court, Ponnani, may be dropped. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant submitted that as the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. ## **Crl.M.C.No.2589 of 2013** :-4-: 5. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5/accused nos.1 to 4, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents, submitted that the matter is settled out of court and pleaded for dropping the proceedings pending against them. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. Annexure-4 is the compromise petition in O.S.No.196/08, entered into between the petitioner/de facto complainant and respondents 2 to 5/ accused. 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 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2589 of 2013** ## :-5-: involved in the above case are only under Sections 406, 415, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC, 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 petitioner/de facto complainant, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the respondents/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the Honourable Apex Court, in the decision reported in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)]. In Gian Singh's 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 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2589 of 2013** ## :-6-: 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 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........” In the present case, the offences involved are under Sections 406, 415, 417, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. The criminal **Crl.M.C.No.2589 of 2013** :-7-: proceedings for the said offences originated from the issues are now settled. Consequently, the parties want a quietus to the criminal case as well. 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 will be squarely 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 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 the trial proceeded, 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 Crl.M.C. can be allowed granting the relief **Crl.M.C.No.2589 of 2013** :-8-: as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings in Crime No.80 of 2009 of Ponnani police station, now pending as C.C.No.200 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Ponnani. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge