Prashanth Nair vs State Of Kerala And Ors

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner is accused in Crime No.1686/2019 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner with an intention to cheat the second respondent-defacto complainant purchased a solitire diamond by fraudulently representing himself to be the Marketing Manager of FLF Bangalore, thereby committing the offence. Annexure A1 is the F.I.R. registered by the Police in crime No.1686/2019.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Perused the records.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that with the intervention of well wishers, the subject matter in dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent has been settled out of court. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent has filed Annexure A2 affidavit, inter alia, stating that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and he is no longer desirous of pursuing the matter any further. Learned counsel vouched for the signature of the second respondent.

The learned Public Prosecutor reported that the investigating officer has ascertained the genuineness of the settlement and the second respondent has admitted the execution of Annexure A2 affidavit. The State has no serious objection in the petition being allowed.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303] and Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another [(2017) 9 SCC 641] has held that in facts and circumstances of a case and to secure the ends of justice, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on being convinced that ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power of this Court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest is involved, the chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony, I am satisfied that the petition is to be allowed.

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 F.I.R. in crime No.1686/2019 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam and all further proceedings pursuant to it as against the petitioner are quashed.