Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2013 3RD SRAVANA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 2957 of 2013 () ------------------------------------- CC 1058/2012 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM ........ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 4 AND 5.-------------------------------------------------------- 1. REVI, AGED 4 YEARS S/O. P.K.RAMASWAMI, GANDHI NIVAS PULAYAKKATTU THERUVIL, KALAKKATTU KURISSI DESOM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD.
2. SIDHIQUE AGED 4 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE KALAKKATTUKURISI DESOM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SREEKUMAR, AGED 4 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, PADMAVILASAM NEAR SREEKRISHNA TEMPLE, REVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM PERMANENTLY AT SREERAGAM, AZAD JUNCTION, EROOR NADAMA VILLAGE, TRIPUNITHURA-682301. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADVS. SRI.N.RATHEESH SMT.SUMA RATHEESH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss Crl.MC.No. 2957 of 2013 () ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1- ACOPY OF THE FIR NO. 1694/10 DTD. 7-9-10. ANNEXURE A2- CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL CHARGE IN CRIME NO. 1694/10 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, TRIPUNITHURA DT. 2-6-12. ANNEXURE A3- ACOPY OF COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM IN O.S.NO. 383/10. ANNEXURE A4- ORDER OF THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE (LOK ADALATH), OTTAPPALAM DT. 25-7-12. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 2957 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2013 ORDER
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 C.C.No.1058/2012 of the ACJM Court, Ernakulam which is a case instituted upon the police report for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 420, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash the Annexure-A2 charge as against the petitioners as the matter is settled out of court.
2. The allegation in the above case is that for the purpose of taking Rs.3 lakh as hand loan for CW2, he had borrowed the title deed of the 2nd respondent bearing No.3137/97 in Sy.No.788/88 of Nadama Village, extending to 9.750 cents of property and a building thereon and also the documents relates to a shop room in Cochin Corporation bearing No.1717/C/6. The CW2 approached the 1st accused for getting the said loan pledging the property of the 2nd respondent. The 1st accused also collected several blank signed stamp papers from the 2nd respondent. Subsequently the accused No.1 to 3 conspired with accused No. 4 & 5 in a Crl.M.C.No. 2957 o”
2. building near Siva Temple, D.H. Road, Ernakulam. The 1st accused had taken a loan of Rs.30 lakhs from 5th accused and forged a document to the effect that he had made agreement for the sale of the 2nd respondent's property to the 5th accused. When the CW2 returned the money borrowed from A1 and requested for the documents. Subsequently the 1st accused informed him that he had entrusted the said documents to the accused No.4 & 5. On meeting with accused No.4 & 5, the accused were created a forged sale agreement using the plain signed stamp paper of 2nd respondent to the effect that his property was agreed to transfer to the 5th accused for an amount of Rs.60 lakhs and out of which, the 2nd respondent has to receive Rs.40 lakh as advance. According to the prosecution, the accused No.1 to 5 committed criminal conspiracy for the purpose of cheating the 2nd respondent, obtained his property. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court between the petitioners who are accused Nos. 4 and 5 and the second respondent. Annexure A3 is the compounding petition filed in the Sub Court at Ottapalam. The defacto complainant, who is the second respondent has also sworn into an affidavit dated 22/7/2013.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as Crl.M.C.No. 2957 o”
3. well as the second 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 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 second 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.
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 Crl.M.C.No. 2957 o”
4. in the above case are only Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC 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 second 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 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 Crl.M.C.No. 2957 o”
5. 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 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 Crl.M.C.No. 2957 o”
6. 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. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-A2 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.1058/2012 of the ACJM Court, Ernakulam and all further proceedings thereto. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE AS