Shamnad Salim v. State of Kerala and Amrutha S. Kumar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/2ND ASWINA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5373 of 2014** **-------------------------------** **CC 57/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO. 710/2010 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA** **--------** **PETITIONER(S):** **----------------------** **SHAMNAD SALIM, S/O.SALIM RAVUTHER, SAJU MANZIL, NALUMUKKU, VETTIYAR VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.SURESH** **RESPONDENT(S):** **------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. AMRUTHA S. KUMAR, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.SAJEEVKUMAR, NO.1, MUSALIYAR LANE, CANTONMENT SOUTH NAGAR, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, PIN CODE - 691 001.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** **Crl.MC.No. 5373 of 2014 ----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------------------ANNXURE A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE FIR, DATED 02-11-2010. ANNXURE A2 - TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT. ANNXURE A3 - AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE CW1.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **msv/** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5373 of 2014** ## **------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of September, 2014.** ## **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.57 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikara, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.710 of 2010 of Mavelikara Police Station] for the offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in the above calendar case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioner was the Director of Amala Foundation Educational Consultancy, functioning at Madathil Building, Budha Junction, Mavelikara and the petitioner from 28.5.2010 onwards, with an intention to deceive the de facto 2 ## **Crl.M.C.No.5373 of 2014** complainant/2[nd] respondent received an amount of Rs.12,73,500/- from the de facto complainant for arranging an admission for her, for BDS in Navodaya Medical College at Raychoor in Karnataka, but the petitioner/accused did not arrange the admission and the amount received was not returned back to the de facto complainant and thereby committed criminal breach of trust to the de facto complainant, as alleged by the prosecution. 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 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, as per Annexure A3 affidavit sworn into by the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. **Crl.M.C.No.5373 of 2014** 3 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] 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 the petitioner. 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 Section 406 of I.P.C. which is 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 4 ## **Crl.M.C.No.5373 of 2014** matter. From the submission made by the counsel for 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 purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercandile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the **Crl.M.C.No.5373 of 2014** 5 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 the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.5373 of 2014** following the decision 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 petitioner in C.C.No.57 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikara, pursuant to Crime No.710 of 2010 of Mavelikara Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge