Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD MONDAY, THE14H DAY OF JULY201423RD ASHADHA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 3287 of 2011 ( ) ---------------------------- CRIME NO.1157/2011 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PENDING BEFORE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATECOURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SREENI PARAMESWARAN, S/O. M.G.PARAMESWARAN, AGED34YEARS, DIRECTOR SHWAS HOMES PVT.LTD., GROUND FLOOR MYSTIC HEIGHTS, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD P.O.EROOR, VYTILA, ERNAKULAM-682306 DIRECTOR, M/S. SHWAS HOMES PVT.LTD. GROUND FLOOR, MYSTIC HEIGHTS, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD EROOR P.O., VYTILA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682306 2. SHAJI AYYAPPAN, AGED45YEARS, S/O. AYYAPPAN, ROSE VILLA, K.P.VALLUVAN ROAD., KADAVANTHARA DESOM ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, NOW,RESIDING ATVILLA NO.2, MYSTIC BELLS, SHWAS HOMES, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD EROOR P.O., VYTILA-682306 DIRECTOR, M/S. SHWAS HOMES PVT.LTD. GROUND FLOOR, MYSTIC HEIGHTS, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD EROOR P.O., VYTILA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682306 3. RAJESH KUMAR, AGED37YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN NAIR, IRINGOTTU HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O.,KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691. BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.C.THOMAS (PULIMOOTTIL CHACKO THOMAS), S/O. C.P.JOHN, AGED54YEARS, RESIDING ATPULIMOOTTIL HOUSE DOOR NO.3/910-C, K.K.ROAD, CHEMBUMUKKU P.O.THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 021.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE, STATION (THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682 031). CRL.MC NO.3287/2011 ADDL.R3 AND R4:
3. HDFC LTD., HOUSE LOAN, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN -682016.
4. AXIS BANK, RAJAJI ROAD, NEAR KSRTC, KOCHI-682035. ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AND ADDL.R4 AS PER ORDER
DATED2510.2011 IN CRL.MA NO.2931/2011 IN CRL.MC NO.3287/2011 R3 BYADV.SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SENIOR ADVOCATE) R3 BYADV.SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL R3 BYADV.SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL R3 BYADV.SRI.BOBBY THOMAS R3 BYADV.SMT.S.AMBILY R3 BYADV.SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JUSTIN JACOB R1 BYADV. SHRI GIGIMON ISSAC THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1407-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO.3287/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1157/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION FILED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DEED DATED2508.2011 EXECUTED BY AND BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS1AND2AND THE1T RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES DATED2508.2011 ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE SIGNED STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINANT DATED2908.2011 //TRUE COPY// A.HARIPRASAD, J.
-------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3287 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2014. ORDER
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.").
2. Prayer in the petition reads as follows: "Hence, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure A- 1 FIR in Crime No.1157 of 2011 on the files of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station, Ernakulam District filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam and thus render justice." 3. Subsequently, respondents 3 and 4, who are HDFC Ltd. and Axis Bank, were impleaded. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 1st respondent/complainant is represented through a counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the additional 3rd respondent is also heard. There was no representation for the 4th respondent Learned Public Prosecutor is also heard.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute Crl.MC No.3287/2011 2 is relating to allotment of villas by a builder to the customers. They have settled the matter out of court. Annexure-A2 is the agreement executed between the parties showing the terms of settlement between the parties. My attention is drawn to the statement dated 13.04.2012 filed by the Investigating Officer. Along with that statement, the statement of the 1st respondent/complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also produced. It has been clearly mentioned therein that the matter has been settled between the defacto complainant and the accused. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Relying on the dictum in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT108SC), learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked to terminate the proceedings as continuation of the prosecution is not required as the parties have completely settled their disputes. Further, this is basically a civil dispute. Therefore, proposition of law stated in paragraph 57 of the above cited decision is relied on to seek reliefs. Paragraph 57 in Gian Singh's case reads as follows: "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 Crl.MC No.3287/2011 3 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. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing Crl.MC No.3287/2011 4 for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, 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. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." Crl.MC No.3287/2011 5 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the respondents have no grievance against the petitioners/accused, I find that the prosecution can be terminated to meet the ends of justice. In the result, the petition is allowed. First information report in Crime No.1156 of 2011 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station, now pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam is hereby quashed. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. cks