Kerala High Court
Raji C vs State Of Kerala on 5 July, 1976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/20TH PHALGUNA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 2752 of 2012 ()
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 610/2012 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR
------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------
RAJI C., S/O. K. GANGADHARAN,
SANTHALAYAM HOUSE, PERINGOME POST,
PAYYANNUR (VIA) KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
-----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM-682031.(CRIME NO.610 OF 2012 OF
PERINGOME POLICE STATION)
2. AJITH KUMAR.K.S.,
VALIYATHAYYIL KARIYIL PRAPOYIL POST,
PAYYANNUR(VIA),KANNUR DISTRICT-670307.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N. SURESH
R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
BP
Crl.MC.No. 2752 of 2012 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
ANX.A1: A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT
FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANX.AII: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEED ASSIGNMENT DATED 5-7-1976.
ANX.A1II: A TRUE COPY OF THE EXCHANGE DEED DATED 10-5-2000
ANX.A1V: A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 14-3-2001
EXECUTEDC BY KUZHITHATTA KRISHNAN TO GANGADHARAN.
ANX.AV: A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 4-1-2005 EXECUTED
BY GANGADHARAN IN FAVOUR OF P.V. SAJI.
ANX.AVI: A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 19-12-2009
EXECUTED BY SAJI IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
ANX.AVII: A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 1-10-2011
EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
ANX.AVIII: A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 2-2-2010
ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
ANX.AIX: A TRUE COPY OF THE NON-ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 30-7-2012 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY COVERED
BY ANNEXURE AVII.
ANX.AX: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN CRL.M.C.NO. 2752/12
DT 28/1/2014.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------
Crl.M.C 2752 of 2012
--------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2014
O R D E R
This is an application filed by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.610/2012 of Peringome Police Station of Kannur District to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner has purchased an extent of 15 cents of land as per Annexure A6 sale deed in the year 2009. The property was an excess land taken over by the Government and as per Annexure 2, it was assigned to one Kuzhithatta Krishnan. The said Krishnan had transfered the property to one Gangadharan as per A4 sale deed and as per Annexure A5 sale deed the Sri.Gangadharan transfered the property to Sri.P.V.Saji and from the said Saji the petitioner purchased the same as per Ext.A6 sale deed. He has sold the property as per Annexure A7 in the year 2011. Mutation has been effected in the name of the second respondent and basic tax was also paid by the second respondent. Later when the second respondent applied for site plan, the Village Officer declined to issue the same stating that the proceedings under Section 85(8) of Kerala Land Reforms Crl.M.C 2752 of 2012 2 Act is pending regarding this property and so site plan cannot be granted. On enquiry, the petitioner came to understand that, some persons claiming interest over the total area extending 201 acres filed applications under Section 85(8) of Kerala Land Reforms Act after about 20 years and that application was dismissed by the Taluk Land Board and that was challenged before this Court and this Court also did not entertain the same and they moved the Honourable Supreme Court and that was pending before the Honourable Supreme Court and this was intimated to the Village Officer and non- issuance of site plan was on the basis of such intimation received by the Village Officer. The Village Officer has committed illegality by not issuing site plan on flimsy grounds. The remedy of the the second respondent complainant is to approach the higher authorities against the illegal act of the Village Officer, instead, he filed a complaint before the Police and the Police had registered a crime against the petitioner as Crime No. 610/2012 alleging offences under Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. There is no criminal offence made out and even if the entire allegation are admitted, it is only a Crl.M.C 2752 of 2012 3 civil dispute and no criminal offence is committed. So the petitioner has no other options except to approach this court seeking the following reliefs:
"To quash the Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.610 of 2012 of Peringom Police Station"
3. Notice on admission was issued to second respondent. The second respondent appeared through counsel and now the second respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled between the parties and he does not want to proceed with the prosecution and he want to withdraw the same.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is in the primitive stage.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the defacto complainant and the petitioner, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the investigation and the possibility of conviction in this case even if the final report filed is remote.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, since the investigation is in the primitive stage cannot be quashed. Crl.M.C 2752 of 2012 4
7. It is an admitted fact that Annexure A1 crime was registered on the basis of the compliant filed by the second respondent before the Circle Inspector of Police Payyannur, which was forwarded to the Peringom Police Station within whose jurisdiction, the offence was alleged to have been committed and on that basis, the present crime was registered. The documents produced by the petitioner show that he has obtained the property from a person in whose favour the excess land taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was assigned as per Annexure A2 document by the change of hands, and he sold this property to the second respondent. When the second respondent applied for site plan of the property in view of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the Honourable Supreme Court, the Village Officer did not issue the site plan, which prompted the second respondent to file the complaint, which resulted in registration of crime.
8. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and the second respondent had filed Annexure A10 Crl.M.C 2752 of 2012 5 affidavit, wherein he had categorically stated that the matter has been settled between the petitioner and himself and he has no grievance against the petitioner and he does not want to proceed with the prosecution and he has no objection in quashing further proceedings in the above matter.
9. In the decision reported Gian Singh V. State of Punjab 2012(4) KLT 108 (SC) it has been 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 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 Crl.M.C 2752 of 2012 6 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."
10. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that, it is a matter of civil nature, the parties have come to a settlement in respect of their civil dispute and the defacto complainant does not want to further proceed with the prosecution matter, there will not be any possibility of any conviction being entered into against the petitioner even if ultimately, the final report is filed and the case was allowed to proceed with trial by the trial court and it will only amount to wastage of judicial time, this Crl.M.C 2752 of 2012 7 court feels that it is a fit case where, the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash further proceedings. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.610/2012 of Peringom Police Station against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Payyannur to inform the Police Station for further necessary action in this regard.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE jm/