Reji Joseph @ Amrutham Reji v. State of Kerala and Fousiya Azad

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/21ST JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2357 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.3116/2012 OF JUDICIAIL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,THRISSUR** **.... (CRIME NO.460/2012 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION)** **....** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** **REJI JOSEPH @ AMRUTHAM REJI, S/O. JOSEPH, MELATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, ANCHUMOORTHIMANGALAM, VADAKKUMCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. FOUSIYA AZAD,** **W/O. ABDUL KALAM AZAD, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 026.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU(KOTTACKAL)** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2357 of 2013** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------** - **ANX.1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN C.C. 3116/12 ON THE FILE OF JFCM-II, THRISSUR. DT. 14-5-12.** - **ANX.2 TRUE COPY OF F.I.R. IN CRIME NO. 460/2012 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION DTD. 14/05/2012.** - **ANX.3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 460/2012 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION NOW ON FILE OF JFCM-II, THRISSUR.** - **ANX.4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31-5-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **ANX.5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30-6-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **ANX.6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27-8-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ------------------------------------------------** ## **N I L** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J --------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2357 of 2013** **----------------------------------** Dated this the 11[th] day of June, 2013 ## **ORDER** 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 an accused in C.C.No.3116/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.460/2012 of Nedupuzha Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections. 406, 420, 465, 506(ii) of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure 3 final report against the petitioner in C.C.3116/2012 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.II, Thrissur considering Annexure 6 as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that complainant is a social worker and Managing Trustee of Charitable Trust namely Kerla Vikaskendram. Under the guise of making the life history of patron Panakkad Sayyed Mohammedali Shihabu Thangal, the petitioner appraoched the complainant and got befriended with her. It is made to believe that the petitioner is constructing a three storied building for **Crl.M.C.No. 2357 of 2013** 2 starting ayurvedic treatment for cancer namely Amruthan Ayurveda Cancer Research Centre and requested the complainant to have her daughter, who completed Ayurvedic course, as partner in the above named Centre. The petitioner had made the complainant to believe that he had business establishments at various Gulf countries. Thus after getting the full confidence of the complainant, the petitioner at various stages obtained an amount of Rs.31,57,600/- from the complainant. The complainant gave the said amount even by pledging the ornaments of her daughter. Other than the above, the petitioner had taken 272 grams of gold ornaments from the complainant and obtained Rs.5 lakhs by pledging the same with Golden Finance, Vadakkumchery. Later as per the request of the petitioner, the complainant gave Rs.4 lakhs which was obtained from one Gokulan Master of Thrissur. Later the complainant was forced to give Rs.4 lakhs to Gopalan Master from her account. It is alleged that the petitioner promised to give 50% share in Amrutham Ayurveda Cancer Research Centre and he made to believe that the same will be inaugurated by 01/01/2012. By the above said act the petitioner cheated Rs.31,57,600/- and 272 gram of gold **Crl.M.C.No. 2357 of 2013** 3 ornaments from the complainant and committed offences under Section 406,420,465,506(2) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above ccrime 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 complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he has no grievance against her. 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 **Crl.M.C.No. 2357 of 2013** 4 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 case are only 406, 420, 465, 506(ii) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code 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 second respondent, it appears to me that the 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_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2357 of 2013** 5 _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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2357 of 2013** 6 _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........”_ 8. According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in **Crl.M.C.No. 2357 of 2013** 7 view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. In my view, 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, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure -3 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 3116 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS