The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Annexure A FIR No.290/2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 419, 497 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second petitioner, is the wife of the de facto complainant, the first respondent herein. The marriage between the second petitioner and the first respondent was irretrievably broken and they were living separately for the last four years. The disputes between the second petitioner and the first respondent were settled amicably and both parties have agreed to withdraw all pending cases including the crime in Annexure A FIR, which is evident from Annexure B Memorandum of Agreement entered into before the Mediation Centre of Family Court, Thiruvalla and Annexure C affidavit of the first respondent filed before this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the proceedings in Annexure A FIR may be quashed by this Court invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent.
3. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2012(4) KLT 108, the Apex Court held that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purpose of quashing, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimonial 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 these category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings, if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of a 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 may 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 wrong-doer 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 question is in affirmative the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
4. The allegation made against the petitioners are for commission of offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 419, 497 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Now as evident from Annexure B Memorandum of Agreement and Annexure C affidavit, the entire dispute between the second petitioner and the first respondent has already been settled and the first respondent has also stated that she has no intention to prosecute the complaint filed against the petitioners.
5. In such circumstances, this is a fit case in which the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No. 290/2014 of the Thiruvalla Police Station can be quashed by this Court invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Sing's case supra.
5. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and the entire proceedings in FIR No. 290/2014 of Thiruvalla Police Station is quashed.
DMR/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE