Anilkumar @ Krishnan v. State

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/21ST BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3511 of 2013 ()** **----------------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 669/2011 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEDUMANGAD CRIME NO. 51/2008 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM** **-----------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-:** **-----------------------------------** **ANILKUMAR @ KRISHNAN, KATTAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KEEZHCHERI MURI, VAMANAPURAM VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.SHINU** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:-:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. BINU, AGED 31 YEARS,** **S/O.BHASIDHARAN, PALLILAMKUZHIVILA, KEEZHCHERI MURI, VAMANAPURAM VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 3511 of 2013 () ------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN SC NO.669/2011 ON THE FILE OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEDUMANGADU.** **ANNEXURE A2. AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 3511 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 12[th] day of September, 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 sole accused in Crime No.51/2008 of Venjarammoodu Police Station, now pending as S.C.No. 669/2011 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangadu for the offences punishable under Sections 342,324,308 od I.P.C. and Section 9 of the Explosive Substance Act with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.669/2011 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangadu and the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to it as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case against the accused is that on 2.2.2008 at 10 p.m. he attacked the first respondent and caused hurt to his body near Pallimon devi temple, Anachal, Thiruvananthapuram district and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court, Crl.M.C.No.3511 of 2013 :-2-: since the petitioner and the first respondent are neighbours and the entire incident originated connected with the family dispute. The first respondent has sworn into Annexure A2 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the first respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the first 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 further against the petitioner and he has 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 Crl.M.C.No.3511 of 2013 :-3-: 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 Sections 342,324,308 od I.P.C. and Section 9 of the Explosive Substance 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 first 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 which 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_ Crl.M.C.No.3511 of 2013 ## :-4-: _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,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. 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3511 of 2013 :-5-: 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 the entire proceedings in S.C.No.669/2011 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangadu and the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to it. sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ -true copy- P.S.TOJUDGE. ## Crl.M.C.No.3511 of 2013 :-6-: