Crl.M.C. Nos. 1741 & 1752 of 2013

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/3RD ASHADHA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 1741 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **IN C.C.NO.205/2008 of J.M.F.C-II, KOTTARAKKARA CRIME NO.517/2007 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** **-----------------------** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:** **----------------------------** **1. ANEESH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ASOK BABU, A.S.BHAVAN, VALAVIL, PEZHUMMOODU, CHITHARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. SNEHAL, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 30 YEARS, PUTHUVALVILA VEEDU, VALAVIL, PEZHUMMOODU, CHITHARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU** **SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU** **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **----------------------------------------** **1. MOHAMMED NAZEER, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ISMAIL PILLAI RAWTHAR, AL-MANAR MANZIL, VALAVUPACHA P.O., CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691331.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI** **R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, M.MADHUBEN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-06-2013, ALONG WITH CRMC NO.1752/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1741 of 2013 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **----------------------** **ANNEXURE -1: COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.517/2007 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.517/2007 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **----------------------** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **ln** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos. 1741 & 1752 of 2013 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 24[th] day of June, 2013 ## **O R D E R** As the parties to the above M.C's are one and same and especially when the above petitions are arouse out of case and counter case and when the subject matters are also same, the above two M.C are heard together and being disposed by this common order. 2. Crl.M.C.No.1741/2013 is preferred by the accused in C.C.No.205/2008 which is instituted upon the report in Crime No.517/2007 of Kadakkal Police Station were the defacto complainant is the first respondent in the above M.C. The offence alleged therein are only under Section 341, 294 (b), 323 and r/w Section 34 of IPC. Where as M.C.No.1752/2013 is directed against the proceedings in S.C.No.1160/2011 on the files of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottarakkara which was eventually instituted on the basis of a final report in Crime No.514/2007 of Kadakkal Police Station and said M.C is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 7 in the above crime and the respondents in this M.C are the defacto complainant and the injured persons. **Crl.M.C.Nos. 1741 & 1752 of 2013** 2 3. Both the counsel for the petitioners and the contesting respondents submitted that the incidents in the above two crimes occurred connected with a disputes as the school bus reached the spot delayedly and the same was questioned by the parents who are the accused in one case and the victim therein are the staff of the bus. Connected with the same this counter crime registered. Now, the case of the petitioners and respondents is that the matter is settled out of court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above crimes, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crimes. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crimes are abuse of process of law and proceedings. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who is the **Crl.M.C.Nos. 1741 & 1752 of 2013** 3 de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against them. 7. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petitions. 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 petitions. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in these cases, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above cases are only Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and r/w 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 counsel for the respondents, it appears to me that the the de facto complainants have no further grievance against the petitioners accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this **Crl.M.C.Nos. 1741 & 1752 of 2013** 4 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 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_ **Crl.M.C.Nos. 1741 & 1752 of 2013** 5 _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 cases and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present cases, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present cases. 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, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of 6 ## **Crl.M.C.Nos. 1741 & 1752 of 2013** process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, these Criminal M.C.'s can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, these Crl.M.C's are allowed, quashing in Crime Nos. 517/2013 & 514/2007 of Kadakkal Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS