The petitioner is the sole accused in the impugned Annexure-I FIR in Crime No. 805/2011 of Peechi Police Station, dated 1.9.2011, for offences punishable under Secs.415, 417, 418 and 420 of the IPC. The husband of the 2nd respondent is the complainant in this case. The gist of the complaint is that he and his wife purchased a property from the petitioner herein on a belief that there is no encumbrance. But according to the petitioner, it was later revealed that substantial liability is due to the South Indian Bank, Mannuthy Branch to be discharged by the accused. Accordingly, a private criminal complaint has been filed, which was directed to be investigated as per the directions issued by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which led to the registration of Annexure-1 FIR in the above said crime. The Police, after investigation submitted Annexure-II final report/charge sheet in the impugned Annexure-1 crime. Later the entire liability to the bank is settled and the amount has been paid and that the 2nd respondent does not want to continue the impugned criminal proceedings and that in the mean time, the original complainant, who is the husband of the 2nd respondent had expired. It is stated that the impugned crime arose out of matters which are purely private dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. That the matters have been settled between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has no objection for the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings. The 2nd respondent has sworn to affidavit dated 14.8.2014, produced as Annexure-III in this Crl.M.C., stating the above said aspects, wherein it is also stated that the disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have been amicably settled and that the impugned criminal proceedings need not be continued any further and that she concedes for quashing of the impugned criminal proceedings and that Annexure-I and II now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thrissur, may be quashed in the interest of justice. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the above captioned Crl.M.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure-II final report/charge sheet in Annexure-I Crime No. 805/2011 of Peechi Police Station, and all further proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.K.Ashish, Advocate has taken notice for R-2 and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.
3. Heard Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.Ashish.K, learned counsel appearing for R-2 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent- State.
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, which is resulted in the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case 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 case 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. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted, on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 2nd respondent, that she has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioner and that she 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 she has no grievance against him and that she will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections 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 2nd 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. ”
In the decision reported in the case Yogendra Yadav & others v. The State of Jharkhand & another reported in 2014 (8) SCALE 634 = III (2014) Current Criminal Reports CCR 426 (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows:
“When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them”.
The Apex Court in the above case was dealing with a case involving offences under Secs. 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code.
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 has 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 wastage of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence, following the decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that this Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for.
10. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure-II final report/charge sheet in Crime No.805/2011 of Peechi Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thrissur, stand quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Peechi Police Station.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge