Crl.M.C.No. 1609 of 2013

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/29TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1609 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC. NO.1156/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT , SASTHAMCOTTA. CRIME NO. 729/2011 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **..............** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5:** **-----------------------------------------------------------** **1. SARATH KRISHNAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 18 YEARS, KULENJIKOMPIL VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKADU WEST, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM.** **2. SREEJITH @ UNNI, S/O.THULASEEDHARAN, AGED 20 YEARS, VALUTHUNDIL, MUTHUPILAKKADU EAST, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM.** **3. HARIKRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, KULENJIKOMPIL, MUTHUPILAKKADU EAST, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **4. AJAYAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, THEKKEVEETTIL THEKKATHIL VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKADU WEST, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **5. SYAM, S/O.SIVAN PILLAI, AGED 20 YEARS, SYAM NIVAS, MUTHUPILAKKADU WEST, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU, SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU.** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1609 of 2013** **2. AJAY CHANDRAN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRA SEKHARAN NAIR, PUNNOOR THEKKATHIL VEEDU, NELLIKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, 691 331.** **3. AJILESH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.VIKRAMAN, LEKSHMANA BHAVANAM, KANDACHIRA, PERINADU, KOLLAM-691 507.** **4. TIJO RAJAN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, KULAMUDY PUTHEN VEEDU,** **SADANADAPURAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 501.** **5. PREM DARSHAN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.LEKSHMANAN PILLAI, GADHA, PATTOLI MARKET. P.O., KANDALLOOR NORTH,** **KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 321.** **6. EBIN., AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.SHINE, AVITTAM, EZHUKONE. P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 501.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN. R2 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.VINAYAKUMAR.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1609 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE-1 THE COPY OF THE FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.729/2011 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-2 THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 12.06.2012 IN CRIME NO.729/2011 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-3 THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-4 THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-5 THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-6 THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-7 THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 1609 of 2013 - A ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 19[th] day of June, 2013 ## **O R D E R** 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 5 in C.C.No.1156 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 729 of 2011 of Sasthamcotta Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,447,324 and 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure I FIR and Annexure 2 final report in Crime No.729/2011 of Sasthamcotta Police Station as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation against the petitioners in the above case is that at about 12.30 in the noon on 1.7.2011 due to previous animosity between the 4[th] year students and mechanical branch students of BMC Crl.M.C.NO.1609 of 2013 :-2-: Engineering College, Sasthamcotta at the instance of the second accused, accused Nos.3 to 15 trespassed into the college and attacked the de facto complainant and others. Now the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court and therefore, they approached this Court for recording the above settlement. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 6. 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 respondents 2 to 6, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the second respondent submitted that the above respondents [second respondent, who is the de facto complainant and respondents 3 to 6 are the injured] do not Crl.M.C.NO.1609 of 2013 :-3-: 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. Annexure 3 is the affidavit of the de facto complainant who is the second respondent in the above Crl.M.C. and the other injured, who are respondents 3 to 6, have also filed Annexures 4 to 7. 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 143,147,148,447,324 and 149 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 Crl.M.C.NO.1609 of 2013 :-4-: 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/the de facto complainant 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** v. **Singh 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the_ Crl.M.C.NO.1609 of 2013 :-5-: _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........”_ 8. 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, rather the net result would be sheer Crl.M.C.NO.1609 of 2013 :-6-: 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 -I FIR and Annexure 2 final report in Crime No.729/2011 of Sasthamcotta Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.1156 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ Crl.M.C.NO.1609 of 2013 :-7-: