IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/3RD ASHADHA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 3430 of 2016 CC 1206/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PEERUMEDU CRIME NO. 203/2014 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI PETITIONER/ACCUSED: NOBLE AUGUSTY, S/O.AUGUSTY, AGED 56 YEARS, MANAPPATTU HOUSE, MATTUKKATTA KARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOSEPH KURIAN, S/O.KURIAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, PARAPPU BHAGOM, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE - 685 507. 3. ROSLIN JOSEPH, W/O.JOSEPH KURIAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, PARAPPU BHAGOM, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE = 685 507. 4. P.P.MATHEW, S/O.PAPPACHAN, PUTHEN PURACKAL HOUSE, PLAMOD BHAGOM, MATHAIPARA KARA, VAGAMON VILLAGE - 85 507. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: msv/ Crl.MC.No. 3430 of 2016 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.1206/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, PEERMADE. A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. A4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/ [ENTITY], J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 3430 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 24th June, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER
1.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in [CASE NUMBER] on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class -I, Peermade. He has preferred this petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the matter has been settled with the rival parties by means of compromise.
2.The petitioner is proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
3.The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner advanced loans to respondents 2 to 4 on the strength of cheques and other valuable securities and demanded high rates of interest. Though the principal amount along with lawful interest was repaid, the petitioner refused to hand over the documents obtained by way of security.
4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Public prosecutor.
5.It is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the rival parties have decided to give a quietus to all their subsisting disputes. After much deliberations amongst themselves and at the interventions of persons who are respected by both parties, they have decided to bury the past and turn a new leaf. There is no acrimony between the parties at present and they are living in peace and harmony. To bring on record the settlement, respondents 2 to 4 have filed separate affidavits in which they affirm in unmistakable terms their decision to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh.
6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents.
7.I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record.
8.It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do 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.
9.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT
108) and [PRECEDENT] and other cases.
In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in [CASE NUMBER] on the files of hte Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class - I, Peermade, are quashed.
[ENTITY], JUDGE kp/-25.6.16.