Reveendranadh S/o Chellappanachary v. Muniyamma and State of Kerala

## **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. 2365 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CRL.A.NO. 22/2013 OF ADDL.DISTRICT (ADHOC) COURT-1, THODUPUZHA CC.NO. 104/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT.,ADIMALY** **-----------------------------------------** **PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------** **REVEENDRANADH, S/O.CHELLAPPANACHARY, KARTHAMPARAMBIL VEEDU, VAZHAKKULAM KARA, MANJALOOR VILLAGE, IDUKKI.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SMT.SHABARSHA.M.K.B.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/ INJURED & STATE:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. MUNIYAMMA,W/O.MARIYAPPAN, AGED 65 YEARS,RESIDING AT LAKSHMI BHAVAN, KALLARKUDI P.O., KATHIPARA KARA, DEVIKULAM TALUK, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN -682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.ALISHA MATHEW R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2365 of 2013 ()** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **-------------------------------------------ANNEX-A1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 22.3.2001 IN CRIME NO.98/2001 OF VELLATHOVAL POLICE STATION. ANNEX-A2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.3.2001 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM, ADIMALY. ANNEX-A3: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLATHOVAL IN CRIME NO.98/2001 DATED 22/3/2001 ANNEX-A4: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2012 OF C.C.NO.104/2006.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J** ## **--------------------------------------Crl.M.C.NO.2365 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.104/2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 98/2001 of Vellathooval Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 205, 406, 409, 463, 468, 471, 474, 477 A, r/w 34 of I.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the Annexure A4, the conviction and sentence passed by the judicial first class Magistrate, Adimaly in C.C.No.104 of 2006 and all other proceedings in Crl.A.No.22 of 2013 pending before the Addl. District (Adhoc) Court-I, Thodupuzha may be quahed as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that A1 was the president of the Vellathooval Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.71. While being so, on 4/12/1995 A1 forged the signatures of Muniyammal who is the defacto complainant. Purushothaman and Balasubramannian are the guarantors in **Crl.M.C.NO.2365 of 2013** 2 the loan application. The guarantors also submitted separate loan application in their names also. In all three loan applications these three persons were receited as mutual guarantors, for which also A1 forged their signatures and thumb impression with an intension of causing it to be believed that those original loan applications made by the applicants. On the same day A1 forged the signature of the secretary of the society in the voucher and received Rs.30,000/- in the name of the above three persons resulting in misappropriation of the amounts of the bank. A2 who was supposed to verify the loan applications knowing that those are forged onces certified the same as genuine. A3 knowing the same to be forged loan applications passed the same 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 first respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the **Crl.M.C.NO.2365 of 2013** 3 continuation of the proceedings in the above case 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 petitioner and sh has no grievance against him. 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 case are only Sections 205, 406, 409, 463, 468, 471, 474, 477 A, r/w 34 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 **Crl.M.C.NO.2365 of 2013** 4 settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the first respondent, it appears to me that the 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_ **Crl.M.C.NO.2365 of 2013** 5 _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_ **Crl.M.C.NO.2365 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 7 ## **Crl.M.C.NO.2365 of 2013** 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 -4 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No. 104 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS