Crl.M.C. No. 2753 of 2013

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2013/14TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2753 of 2013 ()** **-----------------------------------CP 18/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- II, ERNAKULAM. CRIME NO.3751/2010 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.** **.....** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 5** - **------------------------------------------------** **1. BINIL BHASI, AGEDF 30 YEARS, S/O.BHASI,** **KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, CHEMBU P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **2. VISHNUDAS, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SURESH BABU, ARAGANDHARAVELIYIL HOUSE, KANDAMKULAM P.O., KODUNGALLUR.** **3. SREEJITH S.KUMAR, S/O.SASIKUMAR, VATHYAMURI HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **4. ARUN RAMESH, S/O.RAMESH PILLAI, PULINCHUVATTIL HOUSE, PALLIPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **5. ANEESH P.S., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SHANMUGHANANDHAN, PARUTPARAMBIL P.O., NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** - **BY ADVS.SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM) SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):/CWS** ## **--------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY S.I.OF POLICE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM IN CRIME NO.3751/2010 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN 35.** **2. PRINU PETER, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.PETER, KAMBAKKARAN HOUS, KADAKARAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **tss** ## **CRMC. NO.2753/2013** **3. MOBIN JACOB, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, KALLATH HOUSE, PUTHANKAVU P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **4. VARGHESE BINU, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.JOSY, CHAKKALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **5. ROSHAN JACOB, AGED 24 YEARS, HERITAGE VILLA, CHIRAKKAL VILLAGE, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2-5 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **CRMC. NO.2753/2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **A1:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET/FINAL REPORT JFCMC - II, ERNAKULAM.** **A2:- AFFIDAVIT, SIGNED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.** **A3:- AFFIDAVIT, SIGNED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.** **4:- AFFIDAVIT, SIGNED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.** **5:- AFFIDAVIT, SIGNED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES** **NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 2753 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 5[th] day of July, 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 petitioners, who are accused in Crime No. 3751/2010 of Central Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 308 and Section 34 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.193/2012 Sessions Court, Ernakulam, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation against the petitioners accused are that they attacked the respondents 2 to 5 during the arts festival of Law College on 14/12/2010 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 308 and Section 34 of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 5 are that some of them are completed their course and they are practicing lawyers and accordingly the matter is settled. The respondents 2 to 5 are sworn into Annexure 2 to 5 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. **Crl.M.C. No. 2753 of 2013** 2 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 respondents 2 to 5 who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they 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 Sections 323, 324, 308 and Section **Crl.M.C. No. 2753 of 2013** 3 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 the counsel for the respondents, it appears to me that the injured 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 which 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_ **Crl.M.C. No. 2753 of 2013** 4 _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, 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. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute **Crl.M.C. No. 2753 of 2013** 5 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 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 all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No. 3751/2010 of Central Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS