IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 27TH BHADRA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.2505 OF 2019(C) CRIME NO.453/2019 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SHEYAS MEERASA, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. M.P. MEERASA, MANAKKULANGARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. ALOOOR, ALOOR VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.ASWATHY KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 YUSHAH N.C., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAZAKH N.C., NARANCHIRAKKAL HOUSE, P.O. FAROOK, KOZHIKODE, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HESITA MEDI CARE PVT. LTD., PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 025. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC:2505/2019 2 ORDER
Invoking the powers of this Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT] ("the Code", for short), the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the FIR in [CASE NUMBER] registered at the Palarivattom Police Station under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
2. The de facto complainant, who is the 2nd respondent herein, is the Managing Director of Hestia Medi Care Pvt. Ltd. According to the prosecution, while the petitioner was working as the Operations Manager in the Hestia Medi Care Pvt. Ltd., Palarivattom, he committed felony and misused the equipment, and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,97,400/-.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that after much deliberations, the victim has resolved his disputes and differences with the petitioner and he has now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to the affidavit filed by the victim before this Court and asserts that he has no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victim and the offender, the possibility of conviction is bleak and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will only inure to put both the parties to oppression and prejudice. Both sides submit that the wrong is basically private in nature and no public interest is involved.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that the petitioner is not involved in any other crimes. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings against him in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 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].
8. I have noted the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor [CASE NUMBER] that the statement of the victim has been recorded by the investigating officer and that he has asserted that it is not in his best interest that the prosecution proceedings continue. I am of the view 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 victim 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-A2 FIR in [CASE NUMBER] and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner are quashed.
[ENTITY], JUDGE krj TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM DATED 06.03.2019.
ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED IN PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, IN THE [CASE NUMBER] FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER [SECTION] OF THE [ACT] DATED 09.03.2019 ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.03.2019.