Anoop B. and others v. State of Kerala and Aneesh P.H.

## **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. 4052 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO. 2956/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 351/2012 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **--------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **1. ANOOP.B., S/O.P.K.BABU, PALLATTUKUZHIYIL(H), CHINNAR.P.O., IDUKKI,PIN-685 501.** **2. VAISHAKH.D.S., S/O.DEVARAJAN.P., VYSHAKHAM(H), CHALLIMUKKU, KOLLAYIL.P.O., PAALODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-691 541.** **3. PRINCE P. JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, PALACKAL(H), AMBALAMEDU.P.O., KUZHIKKADU,PIN-682 303** **4. TINOOB.P.C., S/O.CHOTHI, PANAKKATHARA NIKATHIL HOUSE, AROOKUTTY.P.O., ALAPPUZHA,PIN-688 535** ## **5. ALTHAF.P.R., S/O.BASHEED.P.A., ALTHAF MANZIL HOUSE, LPS ROAD, PONNURUNNY, VYITILA,PIN-682 019** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.R.ROHITH** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 031** **2. ANEESH.P.H., S/O.HANEEF.P.B., AGED 22 YEARS, PULIKKAL(H), KALLUPARAMBU, PALLURUTHY,PIN-682 005.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **CRMC.NO.4052/2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE FIR NO.351/2012 DATED 02/02/2012 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION. ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET NO.2956/12 DATED 8/3/2012 FILED BY THE ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-II, ERNAKULAM. ANNEX A3 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J** ## **--------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4052 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 12[th] day of September, 2013 ## **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 in C.C.No.2956/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam which is a case instituted upon the police report for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 294(b) r/w Section 149 of IPC., with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 FIR dated 2/2/2012, registered by Ernakulam Central Police and Annexure A2, the charge sheet dated 8/3/2012, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 02.02.2012 at 2.45 pm, the petitioners herein who were the members of Students Federation of India, in Maharajas College Ernakulam being aware of the fact that they were rendering into an unlawful assembly, used force and violence and attacked the 2[nd] respondent who was a member of the Kerala Students Union and there by caused injury to him. The incident happened at Malayalam Hall in Maharajas College **Crl.M.C.No.4052 of 2013** 2 Ernakulam. Thus, according to the prosecution the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 294(b) r/w Section 149 of IPC. Now according to the petitioners and the second respondent as they are studying of the very same institution, settled the disputes subsequently and the second respondent does not interest in prosecute the above case against the petitioners and to that effect the second respondent defacto complainant has sworn into Annexure-A3 affidavit 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent. 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 second respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the **Crl.M.C.No.4052 of 2013** 3 de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and he has 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 Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 294 (b) r/w 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 counsel for the second respondent, 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 **Crl.M.C.No.4052 of 2013** 4 ## 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 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_ **Crl.M.C.No.4052 of 2013** 5 _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 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.4052 of 2013** allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexures-A1 and A2 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.2956/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS