SEBASTIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.C. No. 2279/2014:

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondents, during the course of the submissions, relied on paragraph 61 of the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., 2013 1 SCC(Cri) 160, wherein it was held that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purpose of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature etc. The Apex Court in aforementioned Gian Singh's case cited supra, after surveying many rulings of the Apex Court on the point, has categorically held that the inherent power of the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation and is to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of any court (iii) to do real, complete and substantial justice. In Inder Mohan Goswasmi v. State of Uttaranchal, 2007 12 SCC 1, the Apex Court has held that every High Court has the inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which the court exists or to prevent abuse of process of the court and it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the principles laid down by the Apex Court in those decisions would squarely apply in the facts of the present case.

(3.) The learned Advocates appearing for the contesting respondents have also made submissions in tune with the averments in the respective affidavits filed by their parties concerned in these cases.