Crl.M.C. No. 4158/2014 & Crl.M.C. No. 4162/2014 (High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** # **THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/16TH SRAVANA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 4158 of 2014** **--------------------------CC.NO. 6758/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA** **......** **CRIME NO. 975/2011 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION , THRISSUR** **......** ## **PETITIONERS/1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. SEBASTIAN, AGED 68 YEARS,** - **S/O.JOSEPH, KARUKUTTIKARAN VEEDU, NEAR MICHABHOOMI, PATTAPADAM DESOM, KOTTANELOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **2. SHEBERT, AGED 30 YEARS,** - **S/O.SEBASTIAN, KARUKUTTIKARAN VEEDU, NEAR MICHABHOOMI, PATTAPADAM DESOM, KOTTANELOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.P.JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. ANILKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS,** **S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, IKKARATHARA VEEDU, PATTAPADAM DESOM, KOTTANELOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 324.** ## **2. SHEEBA, AGED 42 YEARS,** - **W/O.ANILKUMAR, IKKARATHARA VEEDU, PATTAPADAM DESOM, KOTTANELOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 324.** **3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-08-2014 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NO.4162/2014,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** **Crl.MC.No. 4158 of 2014** **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **---------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1 : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.6758/2011 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.** **ANNEXURE 2 : ORIGINAL COPY OF THE COMPOUNDING AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/1ST RESPONDENT DT.9-6-2014.** **ANNEXURE 3 : ORIGINAL COPY OF THE COMPOUNDING AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE INJURED/2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09/06/2014.** **ANNEXURE 4 : ORIGINAL COPY OF THE JOINT COMPOUNDING STATEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES DT.9-6-2014.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.4158 & 4162 of 2014 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of August, 2014 ## O R D E R These two applications were filed by accused persons in S.C.No.1015/2013 pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda, and C.C.No.6758/2011 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda, to quash the proceedings, on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The common case of both these petitioners in these petition is that, on 17.06.2011 at about 1.30 p.m., there was some incident occurred between the petitioners in both the cases, in connection with some family disputes in which some of the petitioners in both cases sustained injuries and on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent in Crl.M.C.4162/2014, Crime No.970/2011 of Irinjalakkuda police station was registered, against the Crl.M.C 4158& 4162/2014 2 petitioner therein, alleging offences under Section 294(b), 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and after investigation, final report was filed and after committal the case is now pending before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda, as S.C.No.1015/2013. In respect of the same incident, on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent in Crl.M.C.No.4158/2014, who is the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.4162/2014, another crime was registered as Crime No.975/2011 against the petitioners in that case, alleging offences under Section 294(b), 447, 323, 324 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it is now pending as C.C.No.6758/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda, against the petitioners in that case, who includes the first respondent in Crl.M.C.No.4162/2014. Both the petitioners were neighbours and due to the intervention of well-wishers of both parties, the matter has been now settled between the Crl.M.C 4158& 4162/2014 3 parties and they do not want to prosecute the case against each other. Since certain offences are non-compoundable in nature, they could not move the courts below for this purpose. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well. So the petitioners in both the cases have no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following reliefs: ## in Crl.M.C.No.4158/2014 “It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased quash Annexure 1 final report in C.C.No.6758/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda”. ## in Crl.M.C.No.4162/2014 “It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased quash Annexure 1 final report in S.C.No.1015/2013 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda (Crime No.970/2011 of Irinjalakuda police station)”. **==> picture [361 x 15] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.M.C.No.4158/2014 and first respondent in Crl.M.C.No.4162/2014, who are the affected persons and defacto-complainant in both the cases appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled Crl.M.C 4158& 4162/2014 4 between the parties due to the intervention of well-wishers of both parties and on account of the settlement, their original relationship has been restored and they do not want to prosecute each other and they have filed affidavits stating these fats. 4. The counsel for the petitioners in both the cases submitted that, in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and he prayed for allowing the applications. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this court, submitted that, except these cases there is no other case against the petitioners. But considering the fact that, grave offence have been incorporated, it is not fit to invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. 6. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioners in both the cases are neighbours and known to each other. It is also an admitted fact that, on account of some things 5 Crl.M.C 4158& 4162/2014 happened in the house of respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.M.C.4158/2014, in which both the parties sustained injuries. It is also an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statements given by the respective defacto-complainant, crime No.970/2011 and 975/2011 of Irinjalakkuda police station was registered and after investigation, final reports were filed in both the cases and they are now pending as S.C.No.1015/2013 before the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda, and as C.C.No.6758/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court respectively. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The respective defacto-complainants and injured in both the cases filed affidavits stating the facts that, they were neighbours and known to each other was also mentioned in the affidavits. They have no criminal background as well. It is true that in S.C.No.1015/2013 offence under Section 307 and 326 are included as well and in C.C.6758/2011 offences under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is also included. But on going through the allegations, it cannot be said that the Crl.M.C 4158& 4162/2014 6 ingredients are sufficient to attract the offence either under Section 308 or Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no public interest involved in the case as well. There is some mis-understanding between the parties which resulted in the incident and that resulted in registration of the crime as well. In view of the settlement, old relationship between the parties have been restored and there is no political or other implications involved in the case as well. 7. It is true that, in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** and also in **Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab and Another (2014 (4) SCALE 195) (S.C)** it has been observed that, grave offences including Section 307, even if the parties have settled the case, the court should not normally invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. But even in those cases, it has been observed that, if it is resulted on account of those relationship between the parties who are closely related either as neighbours or as family members and on Crl.M.C 4158& 4162/2014 7 account of the settlement, the old relationship has been restored and even if it is allowed to prosecute, the possibility of conviction is remote, then in such case, the courts are at liberty, considering the circumstances of each case, the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings, to promote settlement and restoration of harmony between the parties, if no other public interest is involved in such matters. Going by the decision, cited supra and also considering the fact that, it is a matter between the neighbours, which resulted on account of some misunderstanding between them and cases were registered on that basis and having understood that mistake and misunderstanding, they have resolved by settlement due to the intervention of well-wishers and the relationship has been restored, this court feels that, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case, as it will amount to wastage of judicial time and conviction in such cases will be remote and it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Crl.M.C 4158& 4162/2014 8 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings, so as to promote the settlement and the restoration of harmony between the parties and the pendency of each cases should not be a hurdle for the same. So the petitions are allowed and further proceedings in S.C.No.1015/2014, pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda, as against the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.4162/2014 and further proceedings in CC.No.6758/2011 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda, as against the petitioners in that case are quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned courts, immediately. Sd/- ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss