IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2016/13TH VAISAKHA, 1938 [CASE NUMBER] () AGAINST THE ORDER IN [CASE NUMBER] of [ACT], KODUNGALLUR CRIME NO. 492/2012 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION , TRISSUR PETITIONER(S)/ACUSED: USHA GANESH CHERIYATTU HOUSE, NATIKA DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, THRIPRAYAR. BY ADVS.SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SMT.SEEMA RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2. [ENTITY] 42 YEARS, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AKG COLONY, NATTIKA DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, THRIPRAYAR-680567. R2,RADDL.3 BY ADV. [ENTITY] R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. [ENTITY] THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: [CASE NUMBER] () APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN [CASE NUMBER] OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION DATED 4.8.2011. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN [CASE NUMBER] OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION DATED 26.6.2013. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION DATED 30.3.2015. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.3.2016. ANNEXURE A5: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE CHAIR PERSON OF [ENTITY], NATTIKA. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL True copy PA to Judge das [ENTITY] J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.[CASE NUMBER] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 3rd May, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER
1. This petition is filed u/[SECTION] of the [ACT].
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in [CASE NUMBER] on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodungalloor. The said case arose out of [CASE NUMBER] of the Valappad police station, registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution allegation was that the petitioner had withdrawn a sum of Rs.14,500/- from the [CASE NUMBER] joint account maintained by the Nattika Kudumbasree Unit at the State Bank of Travancore, Thriprayar Branch. According to the learned counsel it was later revealed that it was based on a misunderstanding that the complaint was lodged.
4. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has appeared through counsel and it is submitted that the matter has been settled. She has also filed an affidavit asserting that the entire disputes between herself and the petitioner has been settled and that she has no subsisting grievance. Later, when doubt arose as to the competency of the de facto complainant to settle the matter, this Court had directed the actual aggrieved to file an affidavit. On the basis of the aforesaid direction, Annexure A5 affidavit has been preferred by the Chairperson of the Nattika Kudumbasree Unit asserting that the matter has been settled and that the Unit has not suffered any loss in the said transaction. [CASE NUMBER]
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. I am convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility. It has been held by the Apex Court, that the High Court, while exercising powers under [SECTION] of the Code will be justified in quashing cases involving even non-compoundable offences if the disputes are really private in nature and no public interests are involved, provided that the offenses are not of the gravely objectionable nature. I have anxiously gone through the relevant records and also the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant. I am convinced that the extraordinary powers under [SECTION] can be invoked as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] , [PRECEDENT] and other cases. It is also [CASE NUMBER] felt that quashing of the instant proceedings would bring about peace and secure ends of justice. No purpose will be served in subjecting the parties to the ordeal of a protracted trial in view of the settlement. It will only enure to waste valuable judicial hours. I am therefore of the view that the criminal proceedings pending as against the petitioner can be quashed .
7. In the result, this [CASE NUMBER] is allowed. All further proceedings as against the petitioner in [CASE NUMBER] on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodungalloor, are hereby quashed.
[ENTITY] JUDGE das