Shahid vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-3 F.I.R. in Crime No. 376/2022 of Valappad Police Station, Thrissur District.

The petitioner is the accused. The respondent No.1 is the defacto complainant. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. The prosecution case in short is as follows: The respondent No.1 is a shareholder of Malappuram Finance Ltd. During the years 2010-2012, the petitioner formed a proprietary concern by name Manappuram Agro Farms and in order to commit criminal breach of trust, he collected nearly Rs.150 crores from the public. When the Reserve Bank of India interdicted the company from doing such business, the petitioner returned nearly Rs.20 crores back to the distributors. According to the respondent No.1, Manappuram Agro Farms was not permitted to accept deposits from the public. The petitioner has illegally collected those deposits only for undue pecuniary advantage.

I have heard Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 as well as Smt.S.Rekha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The crime was registered pursuant to a private complaint filed by respondent No.1 herein at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur (for short, 'the court below') as C.M.P.No.4374/2022. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and it was thereafter crime was registered. The investigation was taken over by ISHO, Valappad Police Station. After conducting the investigation, he submitted a negative final report at the court below. Thereafter, respondent No.1 herein filed C.M.P.No.548/2023 at the court below against the final report contending that it was filed without making a proper investigation. However, the learned Magistrate accepted the final report over-ruling the objection submitted by the petitioner. Then, respondent No.1 approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No. 3429/2023. This Court as per the order dated 25/04/2023 set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the final report and directed the learned Magistrate to take a fresh decision as to whether a refer charge is to be accepted or not, after considering the objections raised by the respondent. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 17/05/2023 and the refer report was returned to Dy.S.P., Kodungallur to conduct a proper investigation and complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.1 now submitted that the entire dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 has been amicably settled and the respondent No.1 does not want to proceed with the case further. An affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.1 has been produced. In the affidavit, he clearly stated that the dispute has been settled and he does not want to proceed with the case further. The statement of respondent No.1 has also been recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kodungallur. In the statement he stated that he has no direct knowledge about the averments he made in the private complaint and he does not have any documents to prove the same. He has also stated that he does not want to proceed with the case further. A report has been submitted by the present investigating officer, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kodungallur Sub Division. In the said report it is stated that after he took over the investigation, again he recorded the statement of respondent No.1, in which he stated that he doesn't have any direct knowledge about the facts stated in the F.I. Statement, he does not have any evidence to prove the allegations and he is not interested to continue with the case. Since the crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the respondent No.1 who now states that the entire matter has been settled and has no direct knowledge about the facts stated in the F.I. Statement and there is no materials to substantiate his allegations, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings.

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court by invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-3. The offence in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-3 F.I.R. in Crime No. 376/2022 of Valappad Police Station, Thrissur District hereby stands quashed.