Crl.MC No. 4604 of 2014

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/27TH BHADRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4604 of 2014** ## **----------------------------------** **CC 47/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHANGANACHERRY CRIME NO. 1920/2012 OF CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM** **----------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 19:** - **-------------------------------------------------** **1. ALOSIOUS C ANTONY @ KURIACHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.K.K. ANTONY, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU PANDANKARI BHAGAM, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **2. SHENO, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. PAPPACHAN, THAPPUTHURATHU VEEDU, PANDANKARI BHAGAM, PANDANKARI KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **3. JIBIN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. OMANAKUTTAN, AMBALATHUCHIRA VEEDU, KOINMUKKU BHAGAM, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **4. JAYESH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. PADMAN, MATTATHIL VEETIL, PONADU KARA, MANNANCHERY VILLAGE.** **5. BEJOY, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. JOHN KURIAN, PALAPPARAMBIL VEEDU, PANDANKARI BHAGAM, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **6. VIPIN JOSE, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSIA, POLAKKAL VEEDU, PANDANKARI BHAGAM EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **7. K. MADHU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, PAVUNKAL VEEDU, ANANPRAMBAN BHAGAM, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **8. MATHAPPAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, POLAKKAL VEEDU, PANDANKARI BHAGAM, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **9. JIJIN A.O., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. OMANAKUTTAN, AMBALATHUCHIRA VEEDU, KOINMUKKU BHAGAM, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **10. JOBIN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI JOSEPH, KARUKAPARAMBIL VEEDU, NEAR EDATHUA CHURCH, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **11. JOSEH SEBASTIAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH DEVASIA, PERUVELIL VEEDU, WEST OF EDATHUA CHURCH, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **p.t.o** **Crl.MC.No. 4604 of 2014** **-2-** ## **----------------------------------** ## **12. SANIL KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. SASIDHARAN, THONNOORILCHIRA VEEDU, PANDANKARI BAGAM, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** ## **13. SAJI,, AGED 37 YEARS,** - **S/O. GOPALAN, PALAPPARAMBU VEEDU, PANDANKARI BHAGAM, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **14. SAMJI, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SWAMINATHAN, MANI MANDIRAM, MAMBUZHAKARI KARA, RAMANKARY VILLAGE.** **15. TOMICHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH MATHEW, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU PANDANKARI BAGAM, EDSTHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **16. SUDHEESH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN, MUNDAKATHIL VEEDU, PANDANKARI BHAGAM, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** ## **17. JOSEPH GEORGE, AGED 42 YEARS,** - **S/O. VARKEY MULAPPANCHERY VEEDU, PANDANKARI BHAGAM, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **18. RAJEEV, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. KESAVAN, KARICHAL VEEDU, PAYIPPADU, HARIPPAD VILLAGE.** **19. ANTO ALPHONSE, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. ALPHONS ANTONY, ALPHONS VILLA, NEAR ST. PIOUS CHRUCH, PANDANKARI BHAGAM, EDATHUA KARA, EDATHUA VILLAGE.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, CW1 AND CW2:** **----------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682031.** ## **2. REENA, AGED 36 YEARS,** - **W/O. DEVASSIA VARGHEE @ BENNY, KANNATHUSSERY HOUSE NEAR SAMSKARIKA NILAYAM, CHEERAMCHIRA CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY -681 008.** **3. DEVASSIA VARGHESE @ BENNY, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. MICHAEL VARGHESE, KANNATHUSSERY HOUSE, NEAR SAMSKARIKA NILAYAM, CHEERAMCHIRA, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY -681 008.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4604 of 2014 ----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** ## **------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO.47/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAIL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHANGANACHERRY ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.1920/2012 OF CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2 : AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES.** **ANNEXURE A3 : AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES --------------------------------------------** ## **NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **msv/** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J** ## **=========================== Crl.M.C No.4604 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 18[th] day of September, 2014** ## **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 Nos.1 to 19 in C.C.No.47/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanacherry, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.1920/2012 of Changanacherry Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 354 and 427 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 charge sheet and further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C No.47/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanacherry arising out of Crime No. 1920/2012 of Changanacherry Police Station as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 17.10.2012 at about 10:15 p.m the petitioners due to the previous enmity towards the third respondent who is the husband of the second respondent formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and came to the house of the second respondent **Crl.M.C No.4604 of 2014** 2 in two cars and a lorry and thereafter trespassed into her house and assaulted her and attacked two mentally retarded brothers of her husband and they sustained injuries in the attack. It is further alleged that the second respondent lost her gold chain weighing 3 sovereigns and she sustained a loss of Rs.50,000/- and thus, the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. 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] and 3[rd] respondents, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents, submitted that the above respondents does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against them. **Crl.M.C No.4604 of 2014** 3 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 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 354 and 427 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 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, it appears to me that they have 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_ **Crl.M.C No.4604 of 2014** 4 _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 predominatingly 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........”_ 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 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, **Crl.M.C No.4604 of 2014** 5 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 Annexure -A1 charge sheet and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.47/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanacherry in Crime No. 1920/2012 of Changanacherry Police Station. **Sd/-** vdv //True Copy// **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** P.A to judge