Vakkachan vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against him.

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.2087 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura arising out of Crime No.1055 of 2013 of Hill Palace Police Station registered for the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioner ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

I  have  perused  Annexure-A3  affidavit  filed  by  the  2nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.2087 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura are quashed.

This Crl.M.C is allowed.