Sasidharan T. v. State of Kerala & Others (CRL.MC No.8502 of 2023)

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, ``` ## **`1945`** ``` CRL.MC NO. 8502 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.96/2023 OF Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.483 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3: ``` - **`1 SASIDHARAN.T AGED 58 YEARS S/O. SANKARAN NAIR, 'THOTTANCHERY HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O, 'THRISSUR-, PIN - 680651`** - **`2 PRAGEETH AGED 35 YEARS S/O.PRAKASAN, NOTTATHU HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O, THRISSUR -, PIN - 680651`** ``` BY ADVS. K.S.BABU N.SUDHA BABU SHANKAR ALVIN JEWEL S.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 RAKESH AGED 36 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDRAN, SREENIKETHAN PULIYATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY DESAM, NETTISSERY VILLAGE, NETTISSERY P.O, THRISSUR -, PIN - 680651`** - **`2 STATE OFKERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682031`** - **`3 S.I OFPOLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR-., PIN - 680651`** ..2.. ## **Crl.M.C.NO.8502/2023** ``` ADDL.R4ANANYA ``` ``` D/O. MOHANAN, SREENIKETHAN PULIYATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O, THRISSUR RATHI SOBHAN W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, KILIYATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O, THRISSUR [ADDL R4 AND R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.02.2024 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2024 IN CRL.M.C.NO.8502/2023] ``` ``` ADDL.R5RATHI SOBHAN ``` ``` BY ADV MENINO FUTO PP-SRI.PRASANTH M.P ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **Crl.M.C.NO.8502/2023** ..3.. ## **SOPHY THOMAS, J** ## **=========================** **`Crl.M.C.No.8502/2023` ========================== Dated this the 28[th] day of February, 2024** ## **`ORDER`** This Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by accused nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.96/2023 of Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC, to quash Annexure A3 FIR and Annexure A4 Final Report in CC No.483/2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur. 2. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused and the members of the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee with dishonest intention induced respondents nos.1, 4 and 5 to invest money in the deposit schemes of Temple Development Committee of Nettissery Siva Temple. Accordingly the 1[st] respondent deposited Rs.36,000/-, 4[th] respondent deposited Rs.9,400/- and 5[th] respondent deposited Rs.15,600/-. But they did not repay the amount, and thus they cheated them. 3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, ## **Crl.M.C.NO.8502/2023** ..4.. learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the matter has been amicably settled and he produced Annexures A6, A8 and A10, affidavits filed by respondent nos.1, 4 and 5 respectively, stating that the entire dispute has been settled, and they are not intending to prosecute this matter any further. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that, the matter has been settled, and he produced signed statement of respondent nos.1, 4 and 5, stating that, they have no objection in quashing Annexure A3 FIR and Annexure A4 Final Report, as against them. 5. In the case on hand, the petitioners are accused nos.1 and 3, and the settlement arrived is only between the petitioners and respondent nos.1, 4 and 5. Respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 have not settled the matter with the other accused. 6. In _**Sajeev and Another v. State of Kerala and Another**_ [2022 (3) KHC 69] this Court held that, it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or final report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case **Crl.M.C.NO.8502/2023** ..5.. invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. Paragraph 9 of **Sajeev’s case** cited _supra_ reads as ## follows. _“9. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the 2nd respondent and the accused Nos.2 and 4 alone who are the petitioners. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR / Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another, 2017 KHC 3564 : (2018) 12 SCC 391 : 2017 (2) KLT 424 : AIR 2017 SC 2595 quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant / accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that it is not impermissible to quash the FIR qua some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In Sreejith v. State of Kerala and Another_ **Crl.M.C.NO.8502/2023** ..6.. _(Crl.M.C.No.3343/2021 dated 10/08/2021), this Court quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C.”_ 8. The affected parties have condoned the act of the petitioners herein, and filed affidavits stating that they have no intention to proceed against them. In such circumstances, the crime can be quashed as against them. 9. In the light of the decision cited Supra, and also relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another**_ ; [(2012) 10 SCC 303)], and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ ; [(2019) 5 SCC 688], this Court is of the view that the proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed on the basis of settlement. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure A3 ## **Crl.M.C.NO.8502/2023** **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** FIR and Annexure A4 Final Report in CC No.483/2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur, stand quashed, as against the petitioners (accused nos.1 and 3) herein. It is made clear that, Annexure A3 FIR and Annexure A4 Final Report, and the proceedings in CC No.483/2023, shall be continued as against the 2[nd] accused. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS** **JUDGE** ACR ## **Crl.M.C.NO.8502/2023** ..8.. ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8502/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER ``` - **`Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF ERSTWHILE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE`** - **`Annexure A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO.96/2023 IN CRIME NO.96/2023 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTILL, THRISSUR IN CC NO.483/2023`** - **`Annexure A4 THE CCRTIRIED COPY OR THE FINAL REPORT/ CHARGE SHEET NO. 242/23 FILED BY THE SI OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION IN C.C NO.483/2023 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTILL, THRISSUR`** - **`Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EXECUTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT`** - **`Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ DERACTO COMPLAINANT`** - **`Annexure A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23.02.2023 EXECUTED BY RAKESH, BROTHER OF ANANYA, 4TH RESPONDENT/ PROPOSED ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT`** - **`Annexure A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 4LH RESPONDENT/ PROPOSED ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT`** - **`Annexure A9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23.02.2023 EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT/PROPOSED ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT`** ``` Annexure A10THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT/ PROPOSED ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT ```