Sarath v. State of Kerala and Raveendra Kurup

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/21ST SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3303 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO. 274/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II,ATTINGAL CRIME NO. 561/2008 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** **SARATH, S/O THULASEEDHARAN NAIR,AGED 27 YEARS, MANGATTU VEEDU, K.P.V./78, DEVESWARAM, KILIAMANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU** ## **RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.PIN-682 031** **2. RAVEENDRA KURUP,S/O NANU KURUP,AGED 71 YEARS, SURYA, DEVASWARAM DESOM,KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (PRESIDENT, DEVESWARAM SREE UMAMAHESWARAN TEMPLE TRUST, DEVESWARAM DESOM, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).PIN-695 673** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.K.RAFEEK R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.ABHILASH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 3303 of 2013 () --------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -------------------------------------------ANNEX 1 THE COPY OF THE FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO. 561/2008 DATED 22-12-2008 ANNEX 2 THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 561/2008 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION DATED 09-01-2009 ANNEX 3 THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3303 of 2013** **------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of August, 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 accused in C.C.No.274/09 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- II, Attingal, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.561/08 of Kilimanoor Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 461 and 380 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure 1 FIR and Annexure 2 final report in the above crime and all further proceedings pursuant to the above calendar case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the accused on 18.12.2008 at about 8.20 p.m., with an intention to commit theft, entered into the compound of the **Crl.M.C.No.3303 of 2013** 2 Sree Umamaheswaran Mahadeva Temple at Deveswaran in Kilimanoor Village and opened the drawer of a steel table, which was kept on the open place in the compound with the key and had stolen `2,614/-. Thus, the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 461 and 380 of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court with the de facto complainant who is the 2[nd] respondent, who sworn into Annexure 3 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] 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 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the **Crl.M.C.No.3303 of 2013** 3 respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is 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 461 and 380 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3303 of 2013** 4 the 2[nd] 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3303 of 2013** 5 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. 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.3303 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 Annexure-1 FIR and Annexure-2 final report in Crime No.561/08 of Kilimanoor police station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.274 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge