Sujith Kumar, Shibu and Siddique v. State of Kerala and Varghese

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/20TH BHADRA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3795 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **10/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 22-08-2009 CRIME NO. 720/2006 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA** **-----** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :** - **-------------------** **1. SUJITH KUMAR,S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 39 YEARS, THARAS VEEDU, KUMBAZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA 689653.** **2. SHIBU, S/O.GOPINATH, AGED 43 YEARS, KAINIKKARA HOUSE, KUMBAZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689653.** **3. SIDDIQUE, S/O.HAIDER, AGED 33 YEARS, ARREECKAL HOUSE, NILAMBOOR, MALAPPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :** - **-----------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **THROUGH THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. VARGHESE, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 71 YEARS, ORIKOMBIL HOUSE, CHENNEERKARA, ONNUKAL, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689647** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.BINNI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** **Crl.MC.No. 3795 of 2013 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 720/2006. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF FINAL REPORT. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 22/8/2009 IN CC NO.10/2007. ANNEXURE A4: AFFIDAIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **BP** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3795 of 2013** **------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of September, 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 petitioners, who are accused in Crime No.720/2006 (C.C.No.10/2007) of Pathanamthitta Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash entire proceedings against the petitioners in L.P.No.37/2009 pursuant to Annexures A1 and A2 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate court, Pathanamthitta, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that a Maruthi car bearing registration No.KL-3-L-7914 which belonged to the de facto complainant was rented out to the 1[st] accused and thereafter the said car was pledged with **Crl.M.C.No.3795 of 2013** 2 the aid of 4[th] accused and grabbed money. Thus according to the prosecution, the accused 3 in numbers have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court with the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant who had sworn into Annexure A4 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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 respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is **Crl.M.C.No.3795 of 2013** 3 the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and he has no grievance against them. 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 406 and 420 r/w 34 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 the 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the **Crl.M.C.No.3795 of 2013** 4 de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/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 offences arising out of matrimony relating to **Crl.M.C.No.3795 of 2013** 5 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, ## **Crl.M.C.No.3795 of 2013** **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 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 all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.720/2006 (C.C.No.10/2007) of Pathanamthitta Police Station and all further proceedings thereto in L.P.No.37/2009 pursuant to Annexures A1 and A2 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate court, Pathanamthitta. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge