RiyasuDeen v. State of Kerala and Victor T. Thomas

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/7TH ASHADHA, 193** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2640 of 2013** ## **---------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC.NO.283/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I,PATHANAMTHITTA** **.... CRIME NO. 38/2009 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA** **...** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------** **RIYASUDEEN, S/O. KASIM RAWTHER, PEZHUVILA VEEDU, KARIARA MURI, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRA KRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 (CRIME NO. 38/2009 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, NOW PENDING AS CC NO. 283/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, PATHANAMTHITTA).** ## **2. VICTOR T. THOMAS,** **S/O. THOMAS MATHEW, MULAMOOTTIL THUNDIYATH VEEDU, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2640 of 2013** ## **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **---------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 38/2009 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE II- ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04-06-2013.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2640 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 28[th] day of June, 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 accused in C.C.No.283 of 2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Pathanamthitta, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.38 of 2009 of Aranmula Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 471 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.283 of 2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Pathanamthitta as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that, the accused was the accountant for the de facto complainant/the second respondent herein when he was the candidate for Legislative Assembly election in Thiruvalla assembly constituency and during the election, the cheque leaves were entrusted with the accused for meeting the expenses for the campaign. According to the prosecution the accused had 2 **Crl.M.C.No. 2640 of 2013** forged the signature of the de facto complainant/the second respondent in the cheque in the account maintained in South Indian Bank, Kozhencherry Branch and when presented for encashment the de facto complainant had given stop memo. On coming to know the fact that it is not the signature of the de facto complainant, he filed a complaint alleging the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 471 of IPC 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 case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case 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 3 **Crl.M.C.No. 2640 of 2013** the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he 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 under Sections 406, 468, 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 4 **Crl.M.C.No. 2640 of 2013** 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 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 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,_ 5 **Crl.M.C.No. 2640 of 2013** _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. According to me, 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 6 **Crl.M.C.No. 2640 of 2013** 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 all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.283 of 2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN Judge** mns/ 7 **Crl.M.C.No. 2640 of 2013**