Allowed

Badusha K. C. v. Riyas K.

Kerala HC20 Jun 2013Crl.MC/2204/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case arising from a commercial dispute, the court held that since the matter was settled amicably and no public interest was involved, criminal proceedings were quashed to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Annexure-I (FIR) and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No. 233/2011.

Badusha K. C. Vs Riyas K. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/30TH JYAISHTA 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2204 of 2013 ()

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶7

------------------

¶8

BADUSHA K. C.,S/O. CHEKKUTTY, KUNDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHELAKKARA P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL

¶10

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE :

¶11

-----------------------------------------

¶12

1. RIYAS K., AGED 28 YEARS KATTY HOUSE, ARAKKAPARAMBA, VENGARA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 304.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VENGARA POLICE STATION, PIN-676 304.

¶14

3. STATE REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE R2 & 3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 2204 of 2013 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

¶21

ANANEXURE I : COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No. 2204 of 2013

¶29

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2013

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

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 is an accused in Crime No. 233/2011 of Vengara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 468 r/w 34 of I.P.C., with

¶32

a prayer to quash all further proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Annexure I in Crime No.233/2011 of Vengara Police Station as the matter is settled out of court.

¶33

The allegation in the above case is that The petitioner who is the 4^th accused in Crime No.233/2011 of Vengara Police Station along with the other accused instigated the defacto complainant to invest money in the Company and the said amount misappropriated and thereby committed the offences punishable Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 468 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as

¶35

well as the first respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶36

Crl.M.C.No. 2204 of 2013

¶37

¶38

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 is abuse of process of law and proceedings.

¶39

The learned counsel for the first 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 petitioner and she has no grievance against him.

¶40

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.

¶41

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 Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 468

¶42

Crl.M.C.No. 2204 of 2013

¶43

¶44

r/w 34 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

¶45

first respondent, it appears to me that the the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner 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:-

¶46

“57. The position that emerges from

¶47

the above discussion can be summarised

¶48

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

¶49

power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide

¶50

Crl.M.C.No. 2204 of 2013

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

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..

¶54

It is further held as follows:-

¶55

“...... ... 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

¶56

Crl.M.C.No. 2204 of 2013

¶57

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

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........”

¶61

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 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

¶62

Crl.M.C.No. 2204 of 2013

¶63

¶64

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.

¶65

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure - I and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No. 233/2011 of Vengara Police Station and all further proceedings thereto.

¶66

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶67

Badusha K. C. v. Riyas K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badusha K. C. v. Riyas K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Jose T a Vs State of Kerala

Sushil Gaba Vs State of Kerala

Geetha Vs Lekha @ Sasilekha

Krishnakumar @ Kishore Vs S.I. of Police

Noushad a. Vs State of Kerala