ANEESH @ ANOOP v. STATE OF KERALA & SUMOTH

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2013/11TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2691 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------SC.NO. 372/2008 OF ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM CRIME NO. 44/2007 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT -----------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:** **-------------------------------------------** **ANEESH @ ANOOP,S/O.BABU PILLAI, ANITHA BHAVAN, NEAR VAYALIL BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, MUTTAKKAVU CHERRY, NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **-------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. SRI.SUMOTH,S/O.REGUNATHAN,POURNAMI HOUSE, NEAR CHERRY VAYALNADA,MEENADU VILLAGE, EARAM CHERRY, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.BOSE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **CRMC.NO.2691/2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.44/2007 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.44/2008 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEX A3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/05/2011 IN S.C.NO.372/2008 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM ANNEX A4 COPY OF THE COMPROMISE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/06/2013** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2691 of 2013** **------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of July, 2013.** ## **O R D E R** The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioner, who is the 4[th] accused in S.C.No.372/08 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) II, Kollam, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No. 44/07 of Chathannoor Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 308 read with section 149 of IPC, with a prayer to quash Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report in the above crime, which is pending as L.P.No.35/2011 in the above court, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation against the accused is that on 2.2.2007 at 10 p.m., they formed themselves into an 2 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2691 of 2013** unlawful assembly with deadly weapons came to the road proceeding to Uliyanadu in Meenadu Village to commit rioting and assaulted with 'idikatta' and sword, inflicting cut injuries to the 2[nd] respondent, and as he changed his position, caused injuries to his shoulder. Thus, the accused had committed the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 308 read with section 149 of IPC. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The case of the petitioner, who is the 4[th] accused, is that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled out of court between himself and the de facto complainant, who is the 2[nd] respondent, who preferred Annexure-A4 affidavit. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. Besides, the above it is also the case of the petitioner that accused 3 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2691 of 2013** nos.1 to 3 have faced the trial in S.C.No.372/08 and they are acquitted as per the judgment dated 9.5.2011. I have perused Annexure-A3 judgment. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the learned Judge has found that, “All the material witness including the injured turned hostile to the prosecution and nothing can be gathered from their evidence to connect the accused with the prosecution allegation. Moreover, it is clear from their evidence that the matter is amicably settled out of court. After the examination of PW1 to PW6 the learned Public Prosecutor dispensed with the examination of the remaining witnesses since there was no scope for a successful prosecution. So the court was constrained to close the evidence and due to lack of evidence, this point is found against the prosecution.” If that be so, according to me, the petitioner is also entitled to get the similar treatment especially in the light of the fact that the matter is settled out of court between himself and the de facto complainant. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any 4 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2691 of 2013** further against the petitioner and he has no grievance against the 2[nd] respondent. 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 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 308 read with section 149 of IPC, 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 5 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2691 of 2013** counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/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 Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “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 pre-dominatingly civil 6 **Crl.M.C.No.2691 of 2013** flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercandile, 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. According to me, as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such 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 7 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2691 of 2013** 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 FIR and Annexure A2 final report in Crime No. 44/07 of Chathannoor Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C.No.372/08 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) II, Kollam. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge