Rinzad v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2013/27TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2943 of 2013** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 483/2013 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **...........** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** **RINZAD, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, RIYAZ MANZIL, NEAR RRVHS, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU** **RESPONDENT(S)/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTD BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.** **2. FOUSIYA, D/O.SHAJITHA BEEVI, AGED 20 YEARS, DARUL SALAM, PAPPALA, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 321.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** **Crl.MC.No. 2943 of 2013** **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **--------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-1: THE COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.483/2013 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-2: THE COPY OF COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,ATTINGAL IN O.P NO.1675/2013 BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE-3: THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2943 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 18[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 sole accused in Crime No.483 of 2013 of the Kilimanoor Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 416,420,468,469 and 471 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure I FIR in Crime No.483/2013 of Kilimanoor Police Station and all further proceedings as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the accused in order to deceive the de facto complainant and to defame her, registered a marriage on 29.12.2012 under the Special Marriage Act purportedly solemnized with the de facto complainant by committing impersonation and forgery and obtained a marriage certificate. Thus, according to the de facto complainant, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 416,420,468,469 and 471 of I.P.C.and now, the case of the Crl.M.C.No.2943 of 2013 :-2-: petitioner/s is that the matter is settled out of court between the petitioner himself and the second respondent,who is the de facto complainant. 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 crime 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 de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and she has no grievance against him. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. The de facto complainant filed Annexure-3 affidavit. Besides the above, the petitioner has also filed Annexure 2 compromise petition, which is duly signed by counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. Crl.M.C.No.2943 of 2013 :-3-: 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 416,420,468,469 and 471 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 second respondent, it appears to me that 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_ Crl.M.C.No.2943 of 2013 ## :-4-: _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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2943 of 2013 :-5-: 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 I FIR in Crime No.483/2013 of Kilimanoor Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ Crl.M.C.No.2943 of 2013 :-6-: