T.K. Raju alias Rajesh Kumar v. State of Kerala and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6732 of 2016 () --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 608/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANCHERY DATED CRIME NO. 500/2014 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:-: ----------------------- T.K.RAJU ALIAS RAJESH KUMAR, S/O.T.V.KUNJAN, AGED 41 YEARS, HOUSE NO.CC VII/75A, THANDARAPALLY HOUSE, CHAKKAMADOM, KOCHI - 682 002. BY ADVS.SRI.A.M.NASEER SRI.REJI GEORGE SRI.BINOY DAVIS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-: ---------------------------1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, KOCHI - 682 002. 3. SURESH PRABHU, S/O.MURUGADAS PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HOUSE NO.CC IX/1242, GANESH PAI ROAD, PANDIKUDY, MATTANCHERRY VILLAGE, KOCHI - 682 002. 4. SOJA LISON, W/O.LISON, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HOUSE NO.CC VII/161, KOLARICKAL HOUSE, CHAKKAMADOM, MATTANCHERRY VILLAGE, KOCHI - 682 002. R3,R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.NATRAJ R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. T.R.RENJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD..... :2: Crl.MC.No. 6732 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI. ANNEXURE B. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT PENDING SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI. ANNEXURE C. TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT IN B.A.NO.4106/2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 6732 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of December, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. No. 608 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Mattanchery. In the aforesaid case, he faces allegation of having committed offences punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 , Section - 3 r/w Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on the basis of source information, the Sub Inspector of Mattanchery Police Station raided the premises of the petitioner and it was Crl. M.C. No. 6732 of 2016 2 found that certain documents which included the cheque signed by the 3[rd] respondent and a blank stamp paper of the value of Rs. 100/- signed by the 4[th] respondent were found. On the premise that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Money Lenders Act and also the Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, crime was registered and after investigation final report was laid before the jurisdictional court. - 4.It is now submitted that the documents which were found by the Investigating Officer from the premises was that of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. They have entered appearance and filed an affidavit, wherein it is asserted that they have no grievance as against the petitioner herein. It is further asserted that the said respondents have had no money transactions as against the petitioner. - 5.Heard the submissions advanced. - 6.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents Crl. M.C. No. 6732 of 2016 3 submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress his submission . It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility . Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 7.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioner. - 8.I have considered the submissions . - 9.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the Crl. M.C. No. 6732 of 2016 4 High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 10.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: ## _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ Crl. M.C. No. 6732 of 2016 5 _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 11.The offence committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society .It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise , persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 12.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. Crl. M.C. No. 6732 of 2016 6 In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-B final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C. No. 608 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Mattancherry are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE