Sonu Abraham v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/7TH ASWINA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 4954 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 1013/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR ---------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :-** **------------------------** **SONU ABRAHAM AGED 24 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM, MATTATHIL, ETTUPARA PAYYAVOOR, NELLIKUTTY, KANNUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :-** **------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.** **2. M.K. SHAJI DAS,, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. KUTTAPPAN, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, SIRAJ QUARTERS KANDOTH, VELLUR AMSOM, PIN - 670 307.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **jvt** **CRL.M.C.No.4954 OF 2014** ## **APPENDIX** Petitioner's Exhibits :- Annexure 1 :- True copy of F.I.R bearing Crime No.1013/2014 of Payyannur Police Station. Annexure 2 :- True copy of an affidavit dated 26.8.2014 sworn by the 2[nd] respondent. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **--------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4954 of 2014** **---------------------------------------Dated this the 29[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 Crime No.1013 of 2014 of Payyannur Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act with a prayer to quash all further proceedings against the petitioner in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that, the 2[nd] respondent's daughter, Shijitha was found missing from 9.8.2014, when all inmates in the house were not at home. Later, police traced out and produced Shijitha before the Crl.M.C.No.4954 of 2014 -: 2 :- learned Magistrate. Finding that she had left her house on her own will, the learned Magistrate was pleased to set Shijitha at liberty and she went along with her father. On tracing her out, she had given a statement to the police, wherein she stated that she was in love with the petitioner herein and they had decided to get married when she attained the age of majority and that the petitioner is innocent. 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 out of court and therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is an abuse of process of law and proceedings. Crl.M.C.No.4954 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 father of the victim 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 at 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 offence involved in the above case is only under Section 57 of the Kerala Crl.M.C.No.4954 of 2014 -: 4 :- Police Act. It is pertinent to note that though such offence is 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 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the the victim has no further grievance against the petitioner 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.4954 of 2014 -: 5 :- 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 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. Thus, I am of the view that 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 Crl.M.C.No.4954 of 2014 -: 6 :- 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, 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 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No.1013 of 2014 of Payyannur Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **Sd/V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE.** jvt