Kerala High Court
Santhamma Abraham vs Nil on 12 March, 2014
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/21ST PHALGUNA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1350 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 1889/2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTITTA
------
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:-:
-------------------
1. SANTHAMMA ABRAHAM, AGED 47 YEARS,
W/O.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT PARUVANICKAL HOUSE,
VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2. ABRAHAM, AGED 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PARUVANICKAL HOUSE,
VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
3. ANITHA JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS,
W/O.MATHAI JOSEPH, AYYASSERIL HOSUE, AREEKAKAVU,
PEZHUMPARA P.O., KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKARA MURI,
VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
4. THANKAN @ MATHAI JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O.JOSEPH, AYYASSERIL HOSUE, AREEKAKAVU,
PEZHUMPARA P.O., KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKARA MURI,
VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/
INJURED/STATE:-:
1. P.P.SINGH,, AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.PRABHAKARAN,
RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
KUMARAMPEROR VADAKKEKARA MURI,
CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAE, RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 667.
Crl.MC.No. 1350 of 2014 ()
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PIN - 689 645.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.JUSTUS
R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
BP
Crl.MC.No. 1350 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO. 1889/2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION
ON THE FILE OF THE C.J.M. PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVITS FILED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
K. Ramakrishnan, J.
==============================
Crl.M.C.No.1350 of 2014
==============================
Dated this, the 12th day of March, 2014.
O R D E R
This is an application filed by the accused persons in Crime No.1889/13 of Pathanamthitta Police Station to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the de facto complainant and themselves under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1889/13 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, alleging offences under Sections.419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that, accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention had managed to forge a Power of Attorney in the year 2004 as document No.266/04, dated 22.12.2004 of Sub Registrar Office, Pathanamthitta of the de facto complainant and using that power of attorney, transferred the properties belonging to the de facto complainant to accused Nos.3 and 4 as sale deed No.105/05 of Perunad Sub Registrar Office and thereby they have committed the aforesaid offences. The matter has been settled between the parties due to the Crl.M.C.No.1350 of 2014 : 2 : intervention of family members and well wishers and it was on the basis of a misconception that the de facto complainant had filed a complaint. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction being entered into against the accused persons. Since it is in the crime stage and some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, neither the police nor the court will not drop the case at this stage. So, they have no other option, but to approach this seeking the following relief:
"To quash the annexure 1 proceedings in Crime No.1889/2013 of Pathanamthitta Police Station on the file of the C.J.M, Pathanamthitta."
3. First respondent entered appearance through Counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and in fact, it was due to misconception of first respondent that a case has been registered. Now, he realized that he executed a power of attorney in favour of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and it was on that basis, the documents have been executed and he has no grievance regarding the same. The civil suit filed in respect of the same issue was also settled and it was not pressed and he had filed an affidavit to that effect as well. The Counsel for the petitioners also Crl.M.C.No.1350 of 2014 : 3 : submitted in support of their case in the petition.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted the statement of the investigating officer stating that crime has been registered in respect of the incident on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant and though notice has been issued to the de facto complainant and the accused persons under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure, they have not produced the documents. So, they could not proceed with the investigation in the matter and they requires six months time for completing the investigation in filing the final report. The learned Public Prosecutor under the circumstances, opposed the application.
5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, which was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Pathanamthitta, through proper channel, the above crime was registered as crime No.1889/13 of Pathanamthitta Police Station against the present petitioners alleging offences under Sections.419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation is being conducted by the investigating officer in Crl.M.C.No.1350 of 2014 : 4 : this regard. In the meantime, it appears that the matter has been settled between the parities. It is also seen from the affidavit field by the first respondent that he had filed a suit O.S.No.131/13 before the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta, to set aside the documents executed by petitioners 1 and 2 on the basis of the power of attorney and for recovery of possession etc., and when he came to understand that he had really executed a power of attorney in favour of them, it was on that basis the sale deeds were executed and it was convinced to him at the mediation held at the instance of the family members and well wishers and on that basis, he had decided to withdraw the suit filed by him and also the complaint filed against the petitioners and on that basis the suit field by him was dismissed as not pressed. So, it is clear from the averments in the affidavit that, though he availed the civil remedy of setting aside documents alleged to have been executed based on an alleged forged power of attorney, he had later not pressed that suit. Further, it is also seen from the affidavit filed that he had given the complaint under the misconception that he had not executed any no power of attorney. But, later, he realized that the power of attorney Crl.M.C.No.1350 of 2014 : 5 : was executed by him and he had now ratified the acts done on the basis of the power of attorney. So, considering the circumstances that a pure civil dispute has been converted in to a criminal offence on the basis of misconception on the part of the de facto complainant which has now been settled due to the intervention of mediators, no purpose will be served by allowing the prosecution to investigation to continue as neither the de facto complainant nor any of the witnesses cited by him are going to support the investigating agency to file a final report implicating the petitioners as accused alleging commission of those offences.
6. Further in the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)], it is held as follows:
"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 Crl.M.C.No.1350 of 2014 : 6 : 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. So, considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and the de facto complainant had now ratified the acts of the accused persons and withdrawn the civil suit filed by him due to the settlement arrived at between Crl.M.C.No.1350 of 2014 : 7 : them on account of the intervention of family members and others and no purpose will be served in allowing the investigation to continue in this regard, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to save the judicial time in such matters.
So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.1889/13 of Pathanamthitta Police Station as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, to inform the same to the concerned police station for taking further necessary action in this regard.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge