Biju @ Kuttan and Saji v. State of Kerala and Shine Kumar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013/10TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3153 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC. NO. 462/2010 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **..........** ## **PETITIONERS/A1 AND A2:-:** **----------------------------------------** **1. BIJU @ KUTTAN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, T.C.6/1132, MURUKKUVILA VEEDU, AAKULAM JUNCTION, AAKULAM WARD, CHERUVAIKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **2. SAJI, AGED 31 YEARS,** - **S/O.SASIDHARAN, T.C.4/141, MANAKATTIL PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR VALIYA VELI RAILWAY STATION, POWNDUKADAVU, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND CW1:-** **--------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. SHINE KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, (CW1) S/O.PONNUMANI, MISHIHA BHAVAN, KANDALIKKONAM, KARUTHAMCODE, KULATHUMMEL VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 572.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN. R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.RAJESH.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3153 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE A. PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.516/2010 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO.462/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE B. AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3153 of 2013** **------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] 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 petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.462/2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No. 516/2010 of Medical College Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 427 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in Annexure A final report, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the accused persons due to enmity towards CW1, who allegedly tried to drove his vehicle towards the petitioners, on 8.6.2010 at 21.30 hrs., A1 pelted stones towards the ## **Crl.M.C.No.3153 of 2013** 2 vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-21-B 3746 driven by CW1, then A2 stopped the vehicle, and at that time, A1 caught hold of CW1 and took him out of the vehicle and hit him with a stone on his lips and wrist, A2 fisted him on his chest and stomach and thereafter the accused persons pelted stones at the vehicle by which CW1 sustained a loss of `5,000/-. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court, as evident from Annexure B affidavit, sworn in by the 2[nd] respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] 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 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the **Crl.M.C.No.3153 of 2013** 3 respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant/injured 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. 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, 324, 427 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 amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by **Crl.M.C.No.3153 of 2013** 4 the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the injured/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(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 **Crl.M.C.No.3153 of 2013** 5 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 prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of ## **Crl.M.C.No.3153 of 2013** 6 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 - A final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.462/2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in Crime No. 516/2010 of Medical College Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge