Crl.M.C. Nos. 3710/2013 & 3711/2013, High Court of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/11TH BHADRA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 3710 of 2013 () --------------------------CP 36/2013 of J.M.F.C., KODUNGALLUR CRIME NO. 2677/2012 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION , TRISSUR PETITIONER(S)/1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- 1. NIKIL, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.SADHANANDHAN, MUTTICHURE HOUSE MURIYANTHODU VALAPPADU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT 2. SIJIRAJ, AGED 22 YEARS - S/O.BHAGAVADSING, PARAYIL HOUSE, CHANDRAPPINNY EAST -DO- VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED/COMPLAINANT(S): ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ARUN.K., AGED 25 YEARS S/O.JAYAPALAN, KOLANTHARA HOUSE, CHENTHRAPINNI VILLAGE KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SUGEESH, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.SURESH KUMAR, AALLAPPIDY HOUSE CHENTHRAPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, - MATHILAKAM , THRISSUR DISTRICT REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2013, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.3711/13 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3710 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2677/2012 DATED 13/12/2013 ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 28/1/2013 IN CRIME NIO.2677/2012 WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.P.NO.36/2013 ANNEXURE 3 COPIES OF THE AFFIDAVITS BY THE IST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS/.INJURED DATED 23/8/2013 ANNEXURE 4 COPY OF THE JOINT COMPOUNDING STATEMENT DATED 23/8/2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------- NIL //True copy// P.A.to Judge uj. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos. 3710 & 3711 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 2[nd] day of September, 2013 ## **ORDER** As the above two cases are arouse out of case and counter case and the parties in both the M.Cs are more or less same and especially when the above dispute are settled, the above two M.C are heard together and being disposed by this common order. 2. Crl.M.C.No.3711/2013 is preferred against Crime No.2676/2012 of Mathilakam Police Station, at the instance of the accused therein which is a crime registered at the instance of the first respondent, who is the defacto complainant whereas Crl.M.C.No.3710/2013 is directed against Crime No.2677/2012 of Mathilakam Police Station, which is the counter case registered against Crime No.2676/2012 of very same Police Station and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the above crime are the petitioners herein. The first respondent is the defacto complainant and other is injured and thus respondents No.1 and 2 are the accused in Crime No. 2676/2012. Thus connected with an incident taken place at about 18.25 hours on 12/12/12 there are two different versions and thus registered two crimes that Crime Nos.2676/2012 and **Crl.M.C. Nos. 3710 & 3711 of 2013** 2 2677/2012 of Mathilakam Police Station in both the cases the prosecution witnesses sustained injuries. Now, the case of the petitioners in the above cases are that as they are residing in the same locality the entire dispute is settled and the petitioners do not want to prosecute each other. In Crl.M.C.No.3711/2013, the defacto complainant and the injured in Crime No.2676/2012 are respectively sworn into Annexures-1 to 3 affidavit and Annexure-4 is the joint statement signed by the parties to the dispute and counter signed by their respective counsels. Similarly in Crl.M.C.No.3710/2013 the defacto complainant and the other injured who are respondents No.1 and 2, respectively sworn into Annexure-3 series of affidavit and also Annexure-4 joint statement signed by the both the disputed parties and counter signed by their respective counsels. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. 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 **Crl.M.C. Nos. 3710 & 3711 of 2013** 3 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. 5. The learned counsel for the 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. 6. 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. 7. 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, 323, 324, 308 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 **Crl.M.C. Nos. 3710 & 3711 of 2013** 4 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 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.._ **Crl.M.C. Nos. 3710 & 3711 of 2013** 5 ## 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 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C. Nos. 3710 & 3711 of 2013** 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, these Criminal M.C.'s can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs are allowed, quashing in Crime Nos. 2677/2012 & 2676/2013 of Mathilakam Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS