Biju Cherian, Saiju @ George Philip & Rajendran v. State of Kerala & Elsi George

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/21ST ASWINA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5743 of 2014** ## **---------------------------** ## **CC 324/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I,PATHANAMTHITTA. CRIME NO. 786/2010 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION.** **....** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED A1-A3:** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. BIJU CHERYAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI CHERYAN, VADAKKEDATHU VEEDU, KOZHIPPALAM MURI, ARANMULA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **2. SAIJU @ GEORGE PHILIP, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, THURUTHIMALA VEEDU, EDAYARANMULA MURI, ARANMULA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **3. RAJENDRAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. REVEENDRAN, PUTHEETHU, MULLAPUZHASSERRY MURI, MULLAPUZHASSERRY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **2. ELSI GEORGE, AGED 38 YEARS,** - **W/O. THOMAS PARADAYIL REJI BHAVAN, ERUMAKKADU MURI, ARANMULA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689645.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** **Crl.MC.No. 5743 of 2014** **---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **-----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A : A COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 786/2010 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: - NIL** **---------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5743 Of 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.786/2010 of Aranmula Police Station registered for offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(ii) and 34 Indian Penal Code. The 2[nd] respondent is the defacto complainant. The 1[st] petitioner is a close relative of the defacto complainant. The allegations raised in the crime is that on 13.8.2010 at about 11:10 pm due to the prior enmity between the sister of the 1[st] petitioner, petitioners came to the house of the defacto complainant and abused defacto complainant and used obscene words and defacto complainant has been made to suffer mental injuries. After registration of the crime and completion of investigation, final report was filed which is now pending as C.C.No.324/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. It is submitted that the petitioners and 2[nd] respondent have discussed the matter and have arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter and that the 2[nd] respondent has no further interest to continue the case against the ::2:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5743 Of 2014** petitioners. As stated, petitioners and 2[nd] respondent are in good amiable terms and that the 2[nd] respondent has sworn to affidavit dated 10.10.2014 stating the aforementioned aspects regarding settlement and that she has no interest to continue the above said case against the petitioners and that the incident occurred due to family dispute and that she has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in the aforementioned impugned criminal proceedings etc. It is submitted that the parties have amicably settled the disputes between them and that further continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings based on such personal disputes is not warranted. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the aforementioned Crl.M.C has been filed seeking to quash the impugned criminal proceedings. 2. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.P.V.Dileep has taken notice for the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent State of Kerala. 3. Heard Sri. Ajith Murali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.V.Dileep, learned counsel for the 2[nd] ::3:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5743 Of 2014** respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent State of Kerala. 4. 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, 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 controversy 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 judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State. 5. Sri.P.V.Dileep, learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent has submitted, on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 2[nd] respondent, that the 2[nd] respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners as stated above and that she has no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners as she has no grievance against ::4:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5743 Of 2014** them and that she will not raise any dispute/complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings is allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that the court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. 7. 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 the 2[nd] respondent, it is clear to the Court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement ::5:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5743 Of 2014** arrived at by them. In this connection, it is 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_ ::6:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5743 Of 2014** _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 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_ ::7:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5743 Of 2014** _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. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to certain personal disputes between the petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent due to some family dispute and they have arrived at a harmonious settlement of such disputes whereby it has also been agreed to terminate the criminal proceedings. 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, Crl.M.C is allowed and impugned AnnexureA final report/charge sheet which arose out of Crime No.786/2010 of Aranmula Police Station which is now pending as C.C.No.324/2010 on the file of the judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings taken thereon stands quashed. The petitioner shall produce ::8:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5743 Of 2014** certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Aranmula Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/-