M. Alavi Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY,THE28H DAY OF FEBRUARY20149TH PHALGUNA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1086 of 2014 () --------------------------- CC.NO. 231/2012 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI CRIME NO. 965/2012 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ------------------------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ M. ALAVI, AGED47YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED HAJI, MECHERI HOUSE, IRUMPUZHI,ANAKKAYAM VILLAGE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 031.

2. ABDU RASAQUE, S/O.AHAMMED, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, MUTTIPALAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM -676 121. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2802-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts Crl.MC.No. 1086 of 2014 () -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -------------------------------------------- ANNEX A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE2D RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI DATED156/2012 ANNEX A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.965/2012 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION DATED166/2012 ANNEX A3 COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER DATED87/2012 FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI. ANNEX A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.965/2012 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION DATED87/2012 ANNEX A5 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE2D RESPONDENT DATED42/2014 RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

................................................. Crl.M.C.No.1086 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 28th day of February, 2014. ORDER

This is an application filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.231/12 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri, to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It is alleged in the petition that the second respondent had filed a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri against the petitioner alleging the offences under Sections 420, 468, 406 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code which was forwarded to the police for investigation by the learned magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on that basis, Annexure A2 crime was registered as Crime No.965/12 of Manjeri police station in Malappuram District and after investigation final report has been filed as Annexure A4 against the petitioner alleging the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Annexure A5 affidavit has been filed alleging that Crl.M.C.No.1086 of 2014 2 the offences under Sections 406 and 420 were deleted. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.231/12 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri and it is pending before that court. In the meantime, the matter has been settled between the defacto complainant and the petitioner and the second respondent does not want to proceed with the prosecution. There is no possibility of conviction being entered against the petitioner as well in view of the settlement. So he has no other option, but to approach this Court seeking the following relief. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing this Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.231/12 on the file of the Chief Judicial Matgistrate Court, Manjeri, Malappuram district.

3. The second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled and he has no grievance against the petitioner at present.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, who opposed the application, on instructions, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioner.

5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of a private complaint filed by the second respondent, a crime was Crl.M.C.No.1086 of 2014 3 registered against the petitioner and after investigation, final report was filed and it is now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri as C.C.No.231/12 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code though the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code were also alleged in the private complaint. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and the second respondent has filed Annexure A5 affidavit stating that the matter has been settled and he has no grievance against the petitioner now. Though in the complaint it was mentioned as a visa transaction, ultimately it appears that it was a case of money transaction between them. Since the petitioner has not returned the money, that promoted the second respondent to file the complaint.

6. Further in the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT108(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "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 mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or the family Crl.M.C.No.1086 of 2014 4 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 proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings 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." 7. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that ultimately the dispute between the parties has become a monetary dispute and that was settled between them, no purpose will be served by allowing the case continue on file as chances of conviction is remote in view of the settlement arrived between the parties.

8. This Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings. Hence, the application is Crl.M.C.No.1086 of 2014 5 allowed and the further proceedings in C.C.No.231/12 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri, as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Magistrate court for further action. Sd/- K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge