Babu v. State of Kerala and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/5TH BHADRA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 3621 of 2013 --------------------------L.P.NO.37/05 IN CC 665/2003 of J.M.F.C.-I, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO.171/98 OF VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3: ---------------------------------- BABU, AGED 48 YEARS S/O KUTTAPPAN, KOTTAYILTHARAYIL, MANJADITHARAYIL BHARANICKAVU VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE VALLIKKUNNAM POLICE STTION. 2. JAYAKUMAR @ JAYAKUTTAN S/O GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KUTTIYIL SREEBHAVANAM MANJADITHARA, BHARANIKAVU, MAVELIKARA. 3. VIJAYAN KANNIMEL VEETTIL, MANJADITHARA, BHARANIKAVU, MAVELIKKARA. R2& R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H.JASMINE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3621 of 2013 --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.1312/98. ANNEXURE 3 (SERIES): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2&3. nkm /true copy/ P.S.TO JUDGE. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3621 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of August, 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 accused No.3 in C.C.No.665/03 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtI, Mavelikkara, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.171/98 of Vallikkunnam Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 427 and 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in Annexure-1 final report in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that due to the enmity towards CW1 and others, the first accused caught hold of CW1 and pushed him out of the hall of the Govt. Model U.P.School, where the Grama Sabha was **Crl.M.C.No.3621 of 2013** 2 going on at Pallickal village in Bharanickavu Panchayath. There occurred a difference of opinion with regard to the 1[st] accused and the de facto complainant. So, the de facto complainant gave complaint against the 1[st] accused in the grama sabha. Due to that enmity, there occurred a tussle between two groups. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that A-2 to 4 wrongfully restrained CW-6 at the school compound and slapped him on his cheek and fisted him on his back and A2, 3 and 4 beat CW-1 on his back. During the incident, a gold chain and watch belonging to CW-1 were broken and CW-2 sustained a loss of `200/-. Thus, the accused committed offence u/s.341, 323, 427 and 34 of IPC. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court with the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant and 3[rd] respondent/the injured, who sworn into Annexures-3 series of affidavits. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. I have also heard the **Crl.M.C.No.3621 of 2013** 3 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. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 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 is the de facto complainant and the injured respectively 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3621 of 2013** 4 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 341, 323, 427 and 34 of 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 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, it appears to me that the de facto complainant and the injured 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) **Crl.M.C.No.3621 of 2013** 5 ## 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3621 of 2013** 6 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 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. 7 ## **Crl.M.C.No.3621 of 2013** In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-1 final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in L.P.No.37/05 in C.C.No.665/03 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtI, Mavelikkara, [in Crime No.171/98 of Vallikkunnam Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge