The petitioner herein is the accused in Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.23/1995 of Hill Palace Police Station, Thripunithura, Ernakulam District for offences alleged under Sec.420 IPC. The 3rd respondent is the defacto complainant in this case. The police after investigation submitted the impugned Annexure-II Final Report/Charge Sheet in the impugned Annexure-I Crime which has led to the filing of C.C.No.1134/2010 on the file fo the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner borrowed Rs.2,000/- from the 3rd respondent-defacto complainant, who is a distant relative of the petitioner in the year 1995 and alleging commission of offence of cheating as envisaged under Sec.420 IPC, the aforementioned impugned criminal proceedings have been set in motion. The petitioner was aged 22 years when he borrowed the money from the 3rd respondent, is conducting a stage carriage service plying from Piravom to Ernakulam. It is the case of the petitioner that it is true that the petitioner had borrowed Rs.2,000/- from his distant relative and that he was always ready and willing to make the payment of the outstanding dues to the 3rd respondent. But, that there was no chance to see him as he was not seen in the place where he lived earlier. The 3rd respondent-defacto complainant has entered appearance through counsel and has sworn to affidavit dated 8.12.2014 which has been filed in this Crl.M.C stating that the petitioner had borrowed Rs.2,000/- from him and that the 3rd respondent had given the complaint to the Hill Palace Police Station which led to the registration of impugned Annexure-I Crime No.23/1995 of Hill Palace Police Station, Thripunithura, Ernakulam, for offence under Sec.420 IPC and that submission of the impugned Annexure-II Final Report/Charge Sheet in the said Crime has led to the pendency of C.C.No.1134/2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. It is further stated in the said affidavit by the 3rd respondent that the matter has been fully and finally settled between the parties and that the petitioner had already given money in 1995 itself and he does not have any intention to proceed any further against the petitioner in the impugned criminal proceedings and that he has no objection for the grant of prayer for quashment of the impugned Final Report/Charge Sheet and all further proceedings arising therefrom. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the impugned Annexure-A2 Final Report/Charge Sheet filed in the impugned Crime No.23/1995 of Hill Palace Police Station, Thripunithura Police Station, Ernakulam District which has led to the institution of C.C.No.1134/2010 on the file of the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and all further proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The Crl.M.C has been admitted and Sri.Jobin Paul, Advocate, has taken notice for the 3rd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for respondents 1 & 2.
3. Heard Sri.P.G.Manu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Jobin Paul, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 & 2.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the controversy have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State.
5. Sri.Jobin Paul, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioner and that he has no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner as he has no grievance against him and that he will not raise any dispute/complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard and submitted that this Court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard.
7. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy, which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, it is clear to the Court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them.
8. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [ See SCC (Cri)]:
“61. 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 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..
It is further held as follows:-
“......... 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 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. ”
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for.
In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed and in the interest of justice, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-II Final Report/Charge Sheet filed in in the impugned Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.23/1995 of Hill Palace Police Station, Thripunithura, which has led to the pendency of C.C.No.1134/2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and all proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioner shall forward certified copies of this order to the Station House Officer concerned as well as to the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.