Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 282 (KER)

A. v. JANAKI VS STATE OF KERALA

2017-02-08

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

body2017
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. 2. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the 2nd respondent herein Crime No.150 of 2012 of Nileshwar Police Station was registered against the petitioners and investigation was taken up for offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 468, 470 read with 34 of the IPC and on its conclusion final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg, where the same is pending as C.C.No.1009 of 2014. 3. The prosecution allegation is that the 1st petitioner claiming to be the owner of the land having an extent of 80 cents in Re Survey No.133/A36 in Karinthalam Village, transferred the same by executing a sale deed in favour of a lady by name Pathumma with the active assistance of accused Nos. 2 to 4. According to the prosecution, the property was actually owned by the sister of the de facto complainant, who was staying in a old age home. 4. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that the parties are near relatives and in view of the resolution of the disputes, the proceedings before the criminal court is a futile exercise. Much reliance is placed on the affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent to buttress their submissions. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses his reservations in the matter. However it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the statement of the de facto complainant has been recorded and he has stated in unequivocal terms that he has no further grievance. 6. I have considered the submissions. 7. The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties is by now well settled. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : "61. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : "61. 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 criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the 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 questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings." 8. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the pertinent observations which are as under: XXXXXXXXXXX 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 9. The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 10. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. 10. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A3 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.1009 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg are quashed.