Binu @ Kochumon v. AnuraJ and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/7TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3651 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 649/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I.,RANNI DATED 30-07-2013 CRIME NO. 33/2009 OF MOOZHIYAR POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :** **---------------------------------------** **BINU @ KOCHUMON, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, RESIDING AT PANATTU HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHY MURI & CHITTAR VILLAGE & RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED/STATE :** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. ANURAJ, AGED 30 YEARS,** - **S/O. PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT KALLUMPURATHU HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHY MURI & CHITTAR VILLAGE & RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOOZHIYAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.JUSTUS R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT V H JASMINE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3651 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF THE ACCUSED COPY IN CRIME NO.33/2009 OF MOOZHIYAR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.649/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE JFMC NO.I, RANNI.** **ANNEXURE 3 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE: NIL** **---------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A TO JUDGE** **LSN** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3651 of 2013 -------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of August, 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 petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.877 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ranni which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.33 of 2009 of Moozhiyar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC with a prayer to quash Annexure-1 in Crime No.33 of 2009 of Moozhiyar Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.877 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ranni as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 12/04/2009 at about 9 P.M. at Angamozhy the accused has wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant. By uttering obscene words the de facto complainant was beaten up on his left hand by A1 with a Crl.M.C.No.3651 of 2013 :-2-: torch and caused fracture to his left hand. Thus, according to the prosecution the accused three in number have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioner is that, the entire dispute with the 1[st] respondent, who is the de facto complainant has been settled out of court and the first respondent has sworn into Annexure-3 affidavit to that effect. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the other accused in the very same crime faced prosecution and by Annexure-2 judgment in C.C.No.649 of 2012, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ranni acquitted those accused. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 1[st] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, during the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties 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. Crl.M.C.No.3651 of 2013 :-3-: 5. The learned counsel for the 1[st] 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 petitioner and he has no grievance against him. 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 including Annexure-3 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 341, 294(b), 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC 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 Crl.M.C.No.3651 of 2013 :-4-: counsel for the 1[st] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/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 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercandile, civil, :-5-: ## Crl.M.C.No.3651 of 2013 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 judicial time and abuse of process of Crl.M.C.No.3651 of 2013 :-6-: 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 in Crime No.33 of 2009 of Moozhiyar Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.877 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ranni. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj