V. I. Balakrishnan; Prakasn V.B.; Prasanth V.B. v. State of Kerala & Jyothi Dharman

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2013/19TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 737 of 2013 (D)** **------------------------------------[CRIME NO. 428/2011 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION , THRISSUR DISTRICT] ..............** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 5,6 & 7: -----------------------------------------------** **1. V.I.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 68 YEARS, VATTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, IRINJALAKUDA TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **2. PRAKASAN.V.B, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.V.I BALAKRISHNAN, VATTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE , IRINJALAKUDA TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT .** **3. PRASANTH V.B, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.V.I BALAKRISHNAN, VATTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. THANISSERY - 7680 701, THRISSUR DISTRICT .** **BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 31 .** ## **2. JYOTHI DHARMAN, AGED 43 YEARS,** - **S/O.DHARMAN KANNAMKULANGARA HOUSE, MANAVALLASERY DESOM, THANISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680 701.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN, R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.737/2013-D:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE F.I.R. DT. 01/07/11. ANNEXURE B: ORIGINAL OF THE AGREEMENT. ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE AWARD OF LOK ADALAT ORGANISED BY K E L S A, DTD. 18TH DECEMBER 2012.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **==> picture [75 x 68] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> //TRUE COPY//<br>P.A. TO JUDGE.<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.737 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of July, 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.5, 6 and 7 in Crime No.428/11 of Kattoor police station, wherein the offences alleged against the accused are under sections 420 and 34 of IPC along with sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978, with a prayer to to quash all proceedings pending against them on the basis of Annexure A FIR and all further proceedings in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted ## **Crl.M.C.No.737 of 2013** :-2-: that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 4. 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 de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and he has no grievance against them. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that the preliminary investigation reveals that the 1[st] petitioner herein, who is the 5[th] accused, has collected more than `1 lakh, as part of 'Money chain business'. Therefore, the settlement may not be at the interest of the society at large. According to me, in the light of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and ## **Crl.M.C.No.737 of 2013** :-3-: considering the seriousness of the allegation contained in the crime, it is not just and proper to allow the 1[st] petitioner to settle the matter or dropping the proceedings against him, and hence he has to face the prosecution. 6. Whereas the case of the petitioner nos.2 and 3, who are accused nos.6 and 7 in the above crime, is that there is no specific allegation against them and the 2[nd] respondent-de facto complainant has no objection in dropping the proceedings against them. Therefore, according to me, it is only just and proper to dispose the M.C. recording the settlement arrived between the de facto complainant and petitioner nos.2 and 3, who are accused nos.6 and 7. 7. 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 ## **Crl.M.C.No.737 of 2013** :-4-: dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition, in favour of 2[nd] and 3[rd] petitioners only. 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 420 and 34 of IPC along with sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978, which are more or less personal in nature that too between the petitioner nos.2 and 3 and the de facto complainant, and no public interest is involved, as far as they are concerned. 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 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 ## **Crl.M.C.No.737 of 2013** :-5-: ## 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 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 ## **Crl.M.C.No.737 of 2013** :-6-: 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, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. ## **Crl.M.C.No.737 of 2013** :-7-: In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all proceedings pending against 2[nd] and 3[rd] petitioners alone, on the basis of Annexure A FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.428/11 of Kattoor Police Station, against accused nos.6 and 7. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge