Bibin Babu and others v. Santheesh and others and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/21ST JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1775 of 2012 (B)** **---------------------------------------** **[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO. 3387/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA]** **................** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 7:** **------------------------------------------------------** **1. BIBIN BABU, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.BAHULEYAN, KOTTEKKATIL HOUSE, KARUMATHARA DESOM, KARUMATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT .** **2. AKHIL, AGED 21 YEARS,** - **S/O.DASAN, NALUMAKKAL HOUSE, KARUMATHARA DESOM, KARUMATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT .** **3. SALESH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.DASAN, MEKKATTUKATTIL HOUSE, KARUMATHARA DESOM, KARUMATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **4. AJMAL, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. ALI, KARIPPAKKULAM HOUSE, KARUMATHARA DESOM , KARUMATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT .** **5. TITTO, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SOORAPPAN, MEKKATTUKATTIL HOUSE, KARUMATHARA DESOM, KARUMATHARA VILLAGE ,THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **6. JITHIN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SIVAN, PANIKKASSERI HOUSE, KARUMATHARA DESOM, KARUMATHARA VILLAGE , THRISSUR DISTRICT .** **7. KRISHNAKALESH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.ASOKAN, KALLINGAPPURAM HOUSE ,KARUMATHARA DESOM, KARUMATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT .** **BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. SANTHEESH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, THARAYIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 001.** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C.NO.1775/2012-B:** **2. GIRISHKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS,** - **S/O.KARTHIKEYAN, THAINAKATH VEETIL HOUSE, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 001.** ## **3. PRAVEEN , AGED 24 YEARS,** - **S/O.PRAKASAN, PUNCHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUNGONAM DESOM, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE , MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 001.** ## **4. STATE OF KERALA,** **REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.** **R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ.S, R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C.NO.1775/2012-B:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE AI: COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME 588/2011 OF THE IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AII: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO.3387/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA. ANNEXURE AIII: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE R.1. BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA. ANNEXURE AIV: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE R.2. BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINIJALAKKUDA. ANNEXURE AV: THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. ANNEXURE AVI: THE COMPOUNDING PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.1775 of 2012 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of June, 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 Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.3387 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda which is a case instituted upon a complaint filed by the first respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 & 326 read with Section 149 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in Annexure A1 F.I.R. and final report pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.3387 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioners/accused had attacked respondents 1 to 3 at a temple premises due to personal animosity on a festival day Crl.M.C.No.1775/2012 :-2-: and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the first 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 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 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 which is Crl.M.C.No.1775/2012 :-3-: marked as Annexure-AV affidavit. 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 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 & 326 read with Section 149 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.1775/2012 :-4-: ## (SC)] in which 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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.1775/2012 :-5-: _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 Crl.M.C.No.1775/2012 :-6-: 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 all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Annexure A1 F.I.R. and final report pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.3387 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj