Baby and Vidyasagar v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/7TH ASHADHA, 193** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2168 of 2013** **--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.562/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, NORTH PARAVUR** **......** ## **CRIME NO. 234/2012 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **......** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** ## **1. BABY, AGED 31 YEARS,** **S/O.SOMAN, PUTHUVAL PARAMBU, KANIYAMKUNNU EAST, KADUNGALLUR.** ## **2. VIDYASAGAR, AGED 33 YEARS,** **S/O.SOMAN, PERUVAPARAMBIL, KANIYAMKUNNU, EAST KADUNGALLUR.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SRI.M.T.AJITH** **SMT.A.BINDU (ALUVA) SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/** ## **INJURED WITNESS:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. V.A.ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 45 YEARS,** **S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, VALLIKKATTIL HOUSE, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK - 681 014.** ## **3. RUKIYA, AGED 49 YEARS,** **W/O.AZEEZ, MACHOORAKATHOOTTU, CHEMBANTEPARAMBIL, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK - 681 014.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.JAISON JOSEPH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2168 of 2013** ## **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **--------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-1.CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE IN CC NO.562/2012 BEFORE JMFC, PARUR.** **ANNEXURE-2.COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.234/2012 OF BINANIPUARAM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-3.AFFIDVIT BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS.** **ANNEXURE-4.BAIL ORDER IN CRL.MC NO.678/2012.** **ANNEXURE-5.AFFIDAVIT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE-6.AFFIDAVIT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE-7.WOUND CERTIFICATE CONCERNING THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-8.WOUND CERTIFICATE CONCERNING THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2168 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of June, 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 petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No562/12 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parur, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No. 234/12 of Binanipuram Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure I charge in the above calendar case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that, on 25.3.2012 at 6.45 p.m., due to enmity towards the de facto complainant and others, the 1[st] accused had wrongfully detained the de facto complainant and the 2[nd] accused had dropped a granite piece on the left foot and thereby caused 2 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2168 of 2013** fracture of the 2[nd] , 3[rd] and 4[th] metatarsal bones of the left foot and on pelting a small stone, had caused injury on the right side of the head of the 3[rd] respondent and it is also alleged that the accused acted with common intention and with an intention to cause bodily harm. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court, as evident from Annexures 5 and 6 affidavits filed by respondent nos.2 and 3 respectively. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant and 3[rd] respondent/injured. 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 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant and 3[rd] respondent/injured, who on the 3 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2168 of 2013** basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and the injured do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against the petitioners. 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 341, 326 r/w 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 4 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2168 of 2013** 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 petitioners/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 5 **Crl.M.C.No.2168 of 2013** 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 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2168 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 - 1 charge and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No562/12 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parur, in Crime No. of 234/12 of Binanipuram Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge