AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioners in Crl. M.C. No. 26/2013 are accused 1 to 3 and the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 155/2013 is the 4th accused in C.P. No. 33/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad. These Crl. M. Cs have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in the light of the settlement between the parties. The 1st respondent in both the cases is the de facto complainant. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The offences alleged are under Sections 420, 294(b), 506(i), 511 of 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code out of which offences under Sections 420 and 506 are compoundable and the offences under Sections 294(b) and 511 of 306 are not compoundable.
Both sides invited my attention to the relevant facts of the case. Mainly it is a case where the accused are alleged to have received an amount of Rs. 8,75,000/- on promise to arrange a ''fish cutting job Visa'' for CW1 to Canada and subsequently the Viza was not arranged and thereby abetted the CW1 for attempting to commit suicide.
A reading of Annexure A will show that, to attract the offence u/s 294(b), no details have been stated therein, it is submitted. As far as the offence u/s 511 of 306 is concerned, it is submitted that on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Satvir Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , to attract the offence under the said section, the condition precedent is that suicide should necessarily have been committed. The relevant portion reads as follows:
... Section 306 renders the person who abets the commission of suicide punishable for which the condition precedent is that suicide should necessarily have been committed. It is possible to abet the commission of suicide. But nobody would abet a mere attempt to commit suicide. It would be preposterous if law could afford to penalise an abetment to the offence of mere attempt to commit suicide.
Herein there is no case that nobody has committed suicide. As far as the offence u/s 294(b) is concerned, this Court in Preethimon and Another Vs. State of Kerala, has taken the view that a vague or general statement in the First Information Report that the accused showered obscene words is not enough to constitute an offence u/s 294(b). It is necessary to state the words uttered by the accused. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment, the legal position has been explained thus:
A vague or general statement in the FIR that the accused showered obscene words is not enough to constitute an offence under S. 294(b). It is necessary to state the words uttered by the accused. The prosecution would not be justified in bringing in the evidence for the first time the words allegedly spoken to by the accused, when the same is not recorded in the First Information Statement in a case instituted upon police report. The complaint or the FIR, as the case may be, shall contain the words spoken to by the accused, which, according to the prosecution, would attract the offence under (b) of the Indian Penal Code. Or else, there is every possibility of evidence being tendered putting forth any words as the prosecution witnesses may wish to put forward improving upon or adding to the allegation in the complaint or FIR causing great prejudice to the accused and depriving his right to have a fair trial.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that CW1 has given a statement that the disputes have been settled between the parties and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant namely, 1st respondent submitted that all the amounts have been received by the said respondent.
In a case like this, the question is whether the Court should exercise the power u/s 482 Cr. P.C. Evidently, the money transaction has led to the allegations against the accused and a criminal complaint has been filed. It was a purely private dispute. Now that the disputes have been settled and the 1st respondent has already received the entire money, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent does not want to prosecute the criminal case and there is no objection for the 1st respondent to quash the proceedings also.
As far as the main offences are concerned, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Satvir Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and that of this Court in Preethimon and Another Vs. State of Kerala, and the principles stated therein, it can be seen that none of those offences have been properly made out. In that view of the matter also, since the petitioners have settled the matter with the 1st respondent, it is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr. P.C. in the light of the principles stated by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, .
In the light of the above, the Crl. M. Cs are allowed and the proceedings in C.P. No. 33/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad will stand quashed.