Chandrakumar & Shihas v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/14TH KARTHIKA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 5906 of 2014 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 22/2011 of ADDL.C.J.M., ERNAKULAM DATED CRIME NO. 787/2010 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-2:** **---------------------------** ## **1. CHANDRAKUMAR AGED 22 YEARS** - **S/O.MANOHARAN, ANUGRAHA, KARUKKAPARAMBU PANANGAD, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.** **2. SHIHAS AGED 21 YEARS** - **S/O.ABDUL KALAM, PUTHUMANA NIKARTHIL, PANANGAD KUMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW** **RESPONDENT(S)/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** **---------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PANANGAD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** ## **2. P.M.VASUDEVAN NAIR** - **S/O.G.KRISHNAPILLA, USHUS THERVELIL (H), ERUMMAKKAD EDAYARAMMULA, ARAMMULA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.** ## **3. JAYA V.NAIR** - **W/O.E.G.PRASAD, USHUS THERVELIL (H), ERUMMAKKAD EDAYARAMMULA, ARAMMULA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **R2&3 BY ADV. SRI.AJITH GEORGE R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **---------------------------** **Crl.MC.No. 5906 of 2014 ()** **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------** - **ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 787/2010 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION.** - **ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.787/2010 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION.** - **ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY R2.** **ANNEXURE 4: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY R3.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL -----------------------//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE** **vdv** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ========================= Crl.M.C No.5906 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 05[th] day of November, 2014** ## **ORDER** The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.787 of 2010 of Panangad Police Station for offences alleged under Sections 279, 294(b), 323, 324, 427 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure 1 is the copy of the FIR in the impugned Crime No.787 of 2010. The police after investigation submitted the impugned Annexure 2 final report/charge sheet in the impugned Annexure 1 Crime No.787 of 2010 of Panangad Police Station. Pursuant to the filing of the impugned Annexure 1 final report/charge sheet the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam has taken cognizance and this has led to the institution of the Calendar Case C.C No.22 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and the petitioners have been enlarged on bail. 2. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioners who were riding and travelling in a motor cycle recklessly met with an accident with the de facto complainant's car and because of the sudden enmity caused due to the accident Crl.M.C No.5906 of 2014 2 the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant and his daughter with their hands causing injury to the de facto complainant and his daughter and that they caused damage to the de facto complainant's car. It is stated that now the entire disputes have been settled between the petitioners and the contesting respondents 2 and 3. It is further stated that the contesting respondents 2 and 3 have separately filed affidavits dated 07.08.2014 produced as Annexures 3 and 4 in this Crl.M.C stating that the matters are settled between the parties and that they are now in good terms and that they have no grievance against the petitioners/accused in the impugned crime and that the allegations in the present case arise out of purely private and personal disputes between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 and that the injuries sustained by them are minor in nature and that respectable persons in the locality mediated the entire issues and settled the matter and that they have no complaint against the petitioner and that they have no objection in quashing the impugned FIR, final report and all further proceedings in the above said crime, which was instituted at their instance. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the petitioners have filed the aforementioned Crl.M.C No.5906 of 2014 3 Crl.M.C with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure 2 final report/charge sheet filed in the impugned Annexure 1 FIR in Crime No.787 of 2010 of Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam, which has led to the institution of the Calendar Case C.C No.22 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and all further proceedings arising therefrom. 3. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.Ajith George has taken notice for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. 4. Heard Sri.P.J.Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Ajith George, learned counsel appearing for 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned impugned 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 Crl.M.C No.5906 of 2014 4 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.Ajith George, the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents 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 complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners as they 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 Crl.M.C No.5906 of 2014 5 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 a] and 3[rd] respondents, 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 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 Crl.M.C No.5906 of 2014 6 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 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. Crl.M.C No.5906 of 2014 7 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 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 Crl.M.C No.5906 of 2014 8 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. In the interest of justice it is ordered that the impugned Annexure 2 final report/charge sheet filed in the impugned Annexure 1 FIR in Crime No.787 of 2010 of Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam, which has led to the institution of C.C No.22 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and all 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, Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge