IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941 Crl.MC.No. 1955 of 2019 CRIME NO. 94/2019 OF KANNAVAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 FRANCIS JOSE, SON OF JOSEPH, AYODAN HOUSE, KOLAYAD, KANNUR-670 650. 2 JOSEPH, SON OF SYPRIAN, AYODAN HOUSE, KOLAYAD, KANNUR-670 650. 3 LILLY, WIFE OF JOSEPH, AYODAN HOUSE, KOLAYAD, KANNUR-670 650. BY ADVS. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2 BOBY DISILVA, SON OF ANTONY DISILVA, DISILVA HOUSE, CHADAYAN COLONY, PAZHAYANGADI, KANNUR-670 358. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE RENOY OTHER PRESENT: R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: [CASE NUMBER] 2 ORDER
This petition is filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT]
2. The petitioners herein are the accused in [CASE NUMBER] of the Kannavam Police Station registered under [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT].
3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners induced the 2nd respondent to part with large sums of money assuring employment abroad.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the party respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the victim and the offenders have arrived at a compromise and narrating the said fact, the victim has filed an affidavit before this Court. The termination of proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the parties and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent would also refer to the affidavit and it is submitted that the parties have not only buried the hatchet, but also have decided to live peacefully in future. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in dragging these proceedings.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents and that the State has no grievance in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved.
8. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their own free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntary and genuine, and can be acted upon.
9. In [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
10. Having considered the submissions advanced and on perusing the records, it appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and does not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.
In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in [CASE NUMBER] of the Kannavam Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
[ENTITY], JUDGE KRJ TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO 94/2019 OF KANNAVAM POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEFACTO COMPLAINANT