This is an application filed by accused numbers 1 to 3 in Crime No.2899/2012 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are accused in Crime no.2899/2012 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam. The case was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the de facto complainant against the petitioners alleging offences u/s 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The matter has been now settled between petitioners and respondents 2 to 8 who according to the prosecution were the persons alleged to have been cheated by the petitioners. In view of the settlement there is no possibility of conviction. Since the matter is in the crime stage neither the police nor the court will drop the proceedings. So they have no other remedy to approach this court seeking the following reliefs:
i) Call for the records pertaining to Crime No. 2899/2012 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam and quash Annexure - A1 FIR in the interest of justice.
ii) Issue any other order or direction which is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
3. Respondents 2 to 8 appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and they have no grievance against the petitioners now and then do not want to prosecute the matter as well. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement there is no possibility of any conviction even if any final report filed as neither the de facto complainant nor the witnesses are likely to support the case of the prosecution to enable them to file any final report against the petitioners. He prayed for allowing the application.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners but opposed the application.
5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent Annexure A1 Crime was registered as Crime No.2899/2012 of Ernakulam Central Police Station alleging offences under Section 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The main allegation was that admissions were given to the students alleging that it is a recognized course and subsequently it was revealed that there is no recognition for the course. Investigation is still in progress. Respondents 2 to 8 are the affected students and they have now settled the claim with the accused persons and now they do not want to proceed with the investigation. Further it is also seen from the affidavits filed by them that due to the intervention of mediators, the matter has been settled and adequate compensation has been paid to the students by the accused as well and also they have stated that except the respondents 2 to 8, no other persons have been affected on account of act of the accused and others have no complaint as well. So considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties by paying adequate compensation, this court feels that no purpose will be served by proceeding with the investigation of the case or trial of the case later as neither the de facto complainant nor the other witnesses are likely to co-operate with the investigation and conviction in such case will be remote even if final report is filed. Further it cannot be said that it is having public interest as such and in fact it is also in the nature of private dispute between students and the management which has been amicably settled due to the intervention of well wishers and mediators.
6. In the decision reported in Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012(4) KLT 108(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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 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 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 case, 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 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 since the matter has been settled between the parties and no purpose will served by either the investigation is allowed to continue or the trial of the case proceeded later, as there is no possibility of either the de facto complainant or the witnesses to support or co-operate with the investigating agency to file a final report and even if a final report has been filed, conviction in such cases will be remote, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings to save the judicial time and also time of the investigating agency. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.2899/2012 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam as against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam to inform the same to the concerned Police Station for necessary further action in the matter.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv