T.K.G. Panicker and M. Suresh v State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/7TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3366 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------------------** **CC 106/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II,HARIPAD. CRIME NO. 81/2006 OF HARIPAD POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA** **...........** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2:** **------------------------------------------------------** **1. T.K.G. PANICKER** - **S/O.KOCHUPILLA PANICKER, MITTUKOTTAGE, AKAMKUDIMURI NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD ALAPPUZHA DISTRICTPIN - 688 001.** **2. M.SURESH, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, EERICKAL KALEEYICKAL AGED 45 YEARS PALLIPAD VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK NANGIARKULANGARA P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICTPIN - 688 001.** **BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.** ## **COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CBCID) OCW-II KOTTAYAM SUB UNIT, KOTTAYAM.** **3. N.VENU KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ASHTALEKSHMI NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD ALAPPUZHA DISTRICTPIN - 688 001.** **R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.S.HYMA R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3366 of 2013 ()** ## **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-I: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER MADE IN R.P NO.1108/2010 IN W.A.NO.1925/10 DATED 15.12.2010.** **ANNEXURE-II: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 29.11.2010 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER 3RD RESPONDENT AND ANOTHER.** **ANNEXURE-III: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT MADE IN W.A.NO.1925/2010 DATED 18.11.2010.** **ANNEXURE-IV: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 24.12.2007 CRL.M.A.NO.6826/2007 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3835/2007.** **ANNEXURE-V: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 24.12.2007 CRL.M.A.NO.6830/2007 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3838/2007.** **ANNEXURE-VI: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT MADE IN C.C.NO.106/2007 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II HARIPAD BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE-VII: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HARIPAD IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.81/2006 ON 20.11.2007.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **R2(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN IA. 584/11 IN RP. 1108/10 IN W.A. 1925/10 DTD. 20.3.2012.** ## **TRUE COPY** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3366 of 2013** **------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of August, 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 Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.106/2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Haripad, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.37/CR/KLM/2008 of CBCIDOCW-II, Kottayam Sub Unit of the CBCID] for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 193, 34, 511 of 420 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-VI charge sheet filed against the petitioners, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation against the petitioners who are accused nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.106/07 is that the 1[st] accused produced three forged documents as genuine, in ## **Crl.M.C.No.3366 of 2013** 2 C.C.No.172/03 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Harippad, and tried to prove with the assistance of second accused that the forged documents produced are genuine and thus made attempt to commit cheating and get an illegal gain of `50,000/- and illegal loss to the complainant, who is the plaintiff in the above calendar case. Thus according to the prosecution, the accused committed the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 193, 511 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioner is that the entire dispute with the 3[rd] respondent is settled. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that when the 3[rd] respondent approached this Court by filing a writ petition for an investigation by another agency in the above crime and when the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition ordering crime branch investigation, the present petitioners, who are the respondents therein, filed a writ appeal as W.A.No.1925/10, which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal, vide **Crl.M.C.No.3366 of 2013** 3 Annexure-III judgment. Again the very same appellants preferred a review petition upon Annexure-III judgment, which was disposed by Annexure-1 order, wherein a Division Bench of this Court recorded that in the light of the submission made by the counsel that the parties have arrived into settlement. Accordingly observed that, “If that be so, the Police also will be relieved of further investigation in the matter. Thus the review petition was disposed of directing the petitioner and complainants to approach the Deputy Superintendent of Police in charge of the investigation team, so that he could record the settlement and close the matter in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure”. 4. The present grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of Annexure-I judgment, the Investigating Officer proceeded further and filed a final report. As directed by this Court, a statement has already been filed by the Investigating Officer by producing Annexure R2(a) order of **Crl.M.C.No.3366 of 2013** 4 the Division Bench in I.A.No.584/11 in R.P.No.1108/10 in W.A.No.1925/10 dated 20.3.2012, stating that the parties to the dispute had not approached him. However, as the 3[rd] respondent who is the de facto complainant sworn into an affidavit dated 26.8.2013, stating that as the dispute is settled between the parties, according to me, the proceedings pending against the petitioners can be quashed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 3[rd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. 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/crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 7. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the **Crl.M.C.No.3366 of 2013** 5 respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and he has no grievance against them. 8. 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. 9. 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 467, 468, 471, 193, 34, 511 of 420 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3366 of 2013** 6 having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 3[rd] respondent, it appears to me that the 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.” **Crl.M.C.No.3366 of 2013** 7 ## 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. 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3366 of 2013** 8 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 - VI charge sheet and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.106/2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Haripad, [in Crime No.37/CR/KLM/2008 of CBCID-OCW-II, Kottayam Sub Unit of the CBCID]. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge