Biju and others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/6TH KARTHIKA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6088 of 2014** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **C.C.NO.195/2012 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA** ## **CRIME NO. 855/2011 OF CHAVARA-THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **----------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED A1 TO 9 :** **---------------------------------------------------** **1. BIJU, AGED 24 YEARS,** - **S/O.SIMPORIYAN, BIJU LAND, KOIVILA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. SIMPORIYAN, AGED 57 YEARS,** - **S/O.AANZIL, BIJU LAND, KOIVILA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **3. JOY, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.SILFORIYAN, SILFORIYAN COTTAGE, KOIVILA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **4. SHIBU, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SILFORIYAN, SILFORIYAN COTTAGE, KOIVILA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **5. NISHA, AGED 26 YEARS,** - **D/O.SIMPORIYAN, BIJU LAND, KOIVILA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **6. JOLLY, AGED 48 YEARS,** - **W/O.SIMPORIYAN, BIJU LAND, KOIVILA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **7. JOHNSON, AGED 43 YEARS,** - **S/O.SILFORIYAN, SILFORIYAN COTTAGE, KOIVILA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** Msd. **..2/-** **..2..** **Crl.MC.No. 6088 of 2014** ## **----------------------------------** ## **8. ANIL, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SILFORIYAN, SILFORIYAN COTTAGE, KOIVILA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **9. JAIN, AGED 69 YEARS,** - **D/O.CLARA, SILFORIYAN COTTAGE, KOIVILA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.** **2. ALOSIOUS, AGED 62 YEARS,** - **S/O.LEONS, MILTON COTTAGE, KOIVILA MURI, THEVELAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 690 526.** ## **3. ANTONY, AGED 25 YEARS,** - **S/O.ALOSYOUS, MILTON COTTAGE, KOIVILA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 690 526.** **4. BIYATREEZA, AGED 54 YEARS,** - **D/O.ROOSA, MILTON COTTAGE, KOIVILA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 690 526.** **5. REETHA, AGED 33 YEARS,** - **W/O.BIYATREEZA KOIVILA MURI, THEVELAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 690 526.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **Crl.MC.No. 6088 of 2014** ## **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)' **|**ANNEXURES :**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE-A:**|**A COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.855/2011 OF**| ||**CHAVARA- THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION IN**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT.**| |**ANNEXURE-B:**|**AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2014.**| |**ANNEXURE-C:**|**AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.08.2014.**| |**ANNEXURE-D:**|**AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2014.**| |**ANNEXURE-E:**|**AFFIDAVIT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2014.**| ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ========================= Crl.M.C No.6088 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 28[th] day of October, 2014** ## **ORDER** The above Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.) seeking the invocation of the inherent powers conferred on this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure A final report/charge sheet in Crime No.855 of 2011 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station which has led to the pendency of the Calendar Case C.C No.195 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkotta and all further proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioners are the nine accused (A1 to A9) in Crime No.855 of 2011 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 323, 324, 326, 427 and 354 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 23.10.2011 at 1:15 p.m the petitioners/accused assembled together unlawfully and petitioners 1 to 3 entered into the hall of the 2[nd] respondent's house and the 1[st] petitioner attacked the 2[nd] respondent with an Crl.M.C No.6088 of 2014 2 iron ring on his nose causing injury, the 4[th] petitioner attacked the 3[rd] respondent with a hammer causing pain on his shoulder, petitioners 5 and 6 assaulted the 3[rd] respondent with hands causing pain, thereafter petitioners 7 to 9 caught hold of the hair of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 thereby outraged their modesty. It is further alleged that a gold chain worth Rs.75,000/- of the 5[th] respondent was also lost in the said incident and thereby the petitioners/accused have committed the above said offences. Crime No.855 of 2011 was registered on the basis of the above allegations wherein the petitioners have been arrayed as accused. After investigation, the police has submitted the impugned Annexure A final report/charge sheet in the aforementioned crime and the matter is now pending as C.C No.195 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkotta. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant/injured and respondents 3 to 5 are also the injured in this case. The petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 had discussed the matter and settled the disputes and they are now in good terms, it is stated. That respondents 2 to 5 have no interest to continue the impugned criminal proceedings against Crl.M.C No.6088 of 2014 3 the petitioners and that respondents have no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Respondents 2 to 5 have filed separate affidavits stating these aspects as per Annexures B, C, D and E respectively. In those affidavits, it is stated by the contesting respondents that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and that they have no interest to continue the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners and that they have no objection to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.855 of 2011 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station which is now pending as C.C No.195 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkotta. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the aforementioned Crl.M.C has been filed. 3. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar has taken notice for respondents 2 to 5 and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. 4. Heard Sri.P.V.Dileep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel Crl.M.C No.6088 of 2014 4 appearing for respondents 2 to 5 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kearla. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, which is resulted in the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the case have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the financial, administrative and financial resources of the State. 6. Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by respondents 2 to 5 that they have amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and that they have no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainants/victims/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners as they Crl.M.C No.6088 of 2014 5 have no grievance against them and that they will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that this court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. 8. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature and not much element of public interest is involved. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5, it is clear to the court that the injured/victims/de facto complainants have no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. In this connection, it is Crl.M.C No.6088 of 2014 6 relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [ See SCC (Cri)]: “61. 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,mercantile, 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 Crl.M.C No.6088 of 2014 7 to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........” In the decision reported in the case **Yogendra Yadav &** **others v. The State of Jharkhand & another** reported in 2014 (8) Scale 634 = III (2014) Current Criminal Reports CCR 426 (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows: “When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them”. The Apex Court in the above case was dealing with a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions Crl.M.C No.6088 of 2014 8 of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure A final report/charge sheet in the impugned Crime No.855 of 2011 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station which has led to the pendency of C.C No.195 of 2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkotta and all Crl.M.C No.6088 of 2014 9 further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.** Vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge