## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/5TH BHADRA, 1936**
## **Crl.MC.No. 4905 of 2014**
**----------------------------------**
## **CRIME NO. 1327/2013 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION , KANNUR**
**------------**
## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:**
## **-------------------------------------**
**ANIL T, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, OLANADIYAN HOUSE, PAYERI KURUMATHUR P.O., KURUMATHUR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670142.**
## **BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI**
## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND VICTIM:**
**--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------**
## **1. STATE OF KERALA,**
**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, THROUGH SHO TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.**
**2. VINEETHA P.V., AGED 38 YEARS W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, PUTHEN VEETTIL, PAYERI KURUMATHUR P.O., KURUMATHUR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT-670142.**
**3. ANARGHA P.V., AGED 18 YEARS,**
**D/O.RAMACHANDRAN, PUTHEN VEETTIL, PAYERI KURUMATHUR P.O., KURUMATHUR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT-670142.**
**R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**PJ**
## **Crl.MC.No. 4905 of 2014**
## **---------------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES**
**-----------------------------------------**
## **ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1327/2013 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION.**
**ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY IN CRIME NO.1327/2013 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION.**
- **ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF R3.**
- **ANNEXURE 4: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER ISSUED FROM TRICHAMBARAM U.P.SHCOOL TO THE PETITIONER.**
**ANNEXURE 5: TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM SREEKANDAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER.**
**ANNEXURE 6: TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED BY DR.ARUNA K.N. TO R3.**
## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES**
**-------------------------------------------**
**NIL.**
**/ TRUE COPY/**
**P.S. TO JUDGE**
**PJ**
## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4905 of 2014**
**------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of August, 2014.**
## **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 accused in Crime No.1327 of 2013 of Taliparamba Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of I.P.C. and section 3(a) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 FIR in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court.
2. The allegation in the above case is that on 19.11.2013 the 3[rd] respondent had gone out of the house in the morning stating that she is going to Chinmaya School for teaching practice, but she did not come back to home from the school after teaching practice and it is alleged by the 2[nd] respondent, who is the mother of the victim, that
2
## **Crl.M.C.No.4905 of 2014**
the 3[rd] respondent/de facto complainant had went along with the petitioner, who is their neighbour, as the 3[rd] respondent is in love with him and thereby the petitioner has committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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, as per the compounding petition dated 16.8.2014 and also as per the affidavits filed by the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the contesting respondents submitted that after attaining majority of the 3[rd] respondent, the marriage between the petitioner and
**Crl.M.C.No.4905 of 2014**
3
the 3[rd] respondent was solemnised on 15.1.2014 and now they are residing as man and wife, leading a peaceful marital life. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case will adversely affect their family life and therefore the proceedings pending against the petitioner has to be quashed.
5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the victim and the de facto complainant, do not intends to proceed any further against the petitioner and they have no grievance against him.
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
4
## **Crl.M.C.No.4905 of 2014**
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 363 and 376 of I.P.C. and section 3(a) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 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 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, it appears to me that the the victim and the de facto complainant have 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
**Crl.M.C.No.4905 of 2014**
5
## 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 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
**Crl.M.C.No.4905 of 2014**
6
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 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 decision cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.
7
## **Crl.M.C.No.4905 of 2014**
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.1327 of 2013 of Taliparamba Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner therein.
Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.**
ami/
//True copy//
P.A.to Judge
