Alexander Luke @ Lukose; John Luke @ Johnson; Abraham Luke @ Babu v. State of Kerala and Others (Crl.M.C. No. 4324 of 2014)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/13TH SRAVANA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4324 of 2014** **---------------------------------[CRIME NO. 929/2014 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT]** **..........** ## **PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 TO 3:** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. ALEXANDER LUKE @ LUKOSE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. LUKOSE, JOSE HOUSE, CHERUVAKKAL (P.O), ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. JOHN LUKE @ JOHNSON, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LUKOSE, J.S. VILLA, CHERUVAKKAL (P.O), ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **3. ABRAHAM LUKE @ BABU, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. LUKOSE, EBEY BHAVAN, CHERUVAKKAL (P.O), ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** - **BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANTS:** **--------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 03.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 321.** **3. PODIYAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O. ANNAMMA, PULLUVILA THEKKATHIL VEEDU, CHERUVAKKAL MURI, ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 321.** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.4324/2014:** **4. KUNJAPPY, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. GEEVARGHESE, PULLUVILA THEKKATHIL VEEDU, CHERUVAKKAL MURI, ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 321.** **5. SAJIMON, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAPPY, PULLUVILA THEKKATHIL VEEDU, CHERUVAKKAL MURI, ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 321.** **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH, R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.4324/2014:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE-A1: COPY OF THE F.I.R AND F.I.S IN CRIME NO.929/2014 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2: AFFIDAVIT OF 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-A3: AFFIDAVIT OF 4TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-A4: AFFIDAVIT OF 5TH RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J =========================== Crl.M.C No.4324 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 4[th] day of August, 2014** ## **ORDER** The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.929/2014 of Pooyappally Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings against the petitioner/ accused in Annexure A1 F.I.R in Crime No. 929/2014 of Pooyappally Police Station now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Kottarakara as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 20.07.2014 at 8:30 p.m due to a dispute between the 5[th] respondent/ de facto complainant's son Saji and the 3[rd] petitioner/3[rd] accused regarding money transaction, the petitioners trespassed into their house and assaulted him, and when the respondents 3 & 4 tried to protect him the 1[st] accused assaulted the de facto **Crl.M.C No.4324/2014** **2** complainant with an unknown weapon and thereby she sustained a minor injury on her forehead. It is also alleged that the 1[st] petitioner assaulted the 4[th] respondent with a wooden piece. It is further alleged that the 2[nd] accused twisted the hand of the de facto complainant's grand son and he suffered pain and thus, the accused have committed the aforesaid offences and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for respondents 3 to 5. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents, submitted that the above respondents does not intend to proceed any further against the **Crl.M.C No.4324/2014** **3** petitioners and they have no grievance against them. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 452, 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], in which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- **Crl.M.C No.4324/2014** **4** _“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.._ ## It is further held as follows:- “...... _... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes 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 and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........”_ According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such **Crl.M.C No.4324/2014** **5** settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure -A1 F.I.R and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No. 929/2014 ofPooyappally Police Station now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Kottarakara. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge