IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1849 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.669/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.GOPALAN, S/O.LATE KANNAN, PADACHERY HOUSE, HOTEL MERCHANT, PERUMBA,PAYYANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. L.K.MODI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION PVT , NIRLON HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, DRI.ANIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI,MUMBAI. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1849 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June 2008 O R D E R The complainant had filed a private complaint alleging that the first respondent has committed offences punishable under Sections 405 and 409 I.P.C. On that private complaint, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and proceedings are pending before the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.669/2006. Both offences are not compoundable. The first respondent/accused has not entered appearance so far. Coercive processes have been issued against the first respondent by the learned Magistrate to secure his presence. 2. At this stage, the petitioner and the first respondent have come together before this court through counsel and they report that the disputes between the parties have been settled amicably. All outstanding disputes have been settled. Annexure 6 is the compromise petition duly signed by the petitioner/complainant and the first respondent/accused in which it is reported to the court that the disputes have been settled. The said joint petition is duly counter signed by the counsel for Crl.M.C.No.1849/08 2 the petitioner and the first respondent, who assert before court that the joint petition has been duly signed by the respective parties. 3. The prayer is to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement between the parties. It is reported that the dispute is one which is purely private and personal between the parties. No public interest or public policy is involved, it is reported. Notice has been given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor does not raise any objections against quashing of the proceedings. 4. Though the offences are non-bailable, the learned counsel rely on the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287]. It is contended that in view of the settlement of the dispute which is purely private and personal between the parties, it is not necessary for the court to continue with the proceedings. It is prayed that a realistic and common sense approach may be adopted and the proceedings may be quashed. 5. In the said decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287], the two Judge Bench of the Crl.M.C.No.1849/08 3 Supreme Court in paragraph 5 make the following observations/statement of the law: “We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S.Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed.” Crl.M.C.No.1849/08 4 6. In these circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that the offences alleged are compoundable, I am satisfied that the said request can be accepted. 7. In the result, a) This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. b) C.C.No.669/06 initiated by the petitioner against the first respondent and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur is hereby quashed. 8. Needless to say, if any action under Section 446 Cr.P.C. is pending against the accused and the sureties, the same shall stand stayed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1849/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.1849/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007