Sharafudheen S/o Moideen Haji v. Chaliyath Rajesh @ Rajesh C and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2013/4TH SRAVANA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3136 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **LP 68/2008 of J.M.F.C.,MALAPPURAM CRIME NO. 74/2006 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM** **--------------** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **--------------------** **SHARAFUDHEEN S/O MOIDEEN HAJI, NELLISSERI HOUSE KUTTIPURAM-KOTTAKKAL, KOTTAKKAL-PO MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)** **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **---------------------------------------** **1. CHALIYATH RAJESH @ RAJESH.C S/O MOHANAN, CHALIYATH HOUSE, KAIPPALLIKUNDU KOTTAKKAL, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 503.** **2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTAKKAL)** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.RAJESH VIJAYAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** **Crl.MC.No. 3136 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **--------** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO:74/2006 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE KOTTAKKAL POLICE IN CRIME NO:74/2006.** **ANNEXURE C: AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT/FIRST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :: NIL** **-----------------------** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3136 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2013** ## **ORDER** 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 L.P.No.68 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.74 of 2006 of Kottakkal Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-B Final Report in Crime No.74 of 2006 of Kottakkal Police Station, Malappuram District and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in L.P.No.68 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that, on 16/01/2006, petitioner being a friend of the de facto complainant/first respondent borrowed the Scorpio Car (KL09-L-9675) belonging to the first respondent representing that Crl.M.C.No.3136 of 2013 :-2-: he requires it in connection with a marriage. However, later petitioner failed to return the Car. Subsequently, petitioner was also found missing. In that context, first respondent has preferred a complaint before the second respondent on 13/3/2006, which lead to the registration of the crime. During the course of investigation, the vehicle was recovered by the police on 20/3/2006 itself. On completion of the investigation, police laid charge against the petitioner. Now the case of the petitioner is that the dispute between himself and the first respondent, who is the de facto complainant is settled out of court. Annexure-C is the affidavit sworn into by the first respondent/de facto complainant. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 1[st] 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 dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the Crl.M.C.No.3136 of 2013 :-3-: proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 1[st] 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 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 including Annexure-C affidavit. 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 are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are Crl.M.C.No.3136 of 2013 :-4-: 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 1[st] 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 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:- Crl.M.C.No.3136 of 2013 :-5-: “......... 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3136 of 2013 :-6-: 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-B Final Report in Crime No.74 of 2006 of Kottakkal Police Station, Malappuram District and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in L.P.No.68 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge