Crl.M.C.No. 1859 of 2013

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/24TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1859 of 2013 ()** ## **--------------------------CRIME NO. 1530/2011 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM ...............................................** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 :** ## **----------------------------------------------------** **1. PAUL LAWRENCE, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. LAWRENCE, RESIDING AT ABIN NIVAS, VATTATHARA HOUSE, PEREYAM, MULAVANNA VILLAGE, PADAPPAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. SEBASTIAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. BRUNOOS, RATHEESH BHAVAN, N.S.NAGAR, PEREYAM, MULAVANNA VILLAGE, PADAPPAKARA KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **3. MERLIN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. YESUDASAN, MERLIN HOUSE, N.S.NAGAR, PEREYAM, MULAVANNA VILLAGE, PADAPPAKARA KOLLAM DISTRICT.** - **BY ADV. SRI.V.A.AJIVAS** ## **RESPONDENTS :** ## **----------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. NITHIN JACOB, AGED 22 YEARS S/O. JACOB, VATTATHARA HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM, PERAYAM CHERIYIL, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 503.** - **R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.MANJU (KADAKKAL) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **AMV** **: 2 : Crl.MC.No. 1859 of 2013 () -----------------------------------APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.1530/11 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------------** **==> picture [69 x 68] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> /TRUE COPY/<br>P.A.TO JUDGE<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> **==> picture [23 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> AMV<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 1859 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 14[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 3 in C.C.No.479/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 1530/2011 of Kundara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure I Charge Sheet in C.C.No.479/2012of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam as against the petitioners as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the accused in the above case had unlawfully restrained and caused hurt to his body, for the reason that the 2[nd] respondent had not given his Mobile Phone to the petitioner and used abusive languages by the petitioners and now, the case of the petitioners are that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as **Crl.M.C.No. 1859 of 2013** 2 well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and he has 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No. 1859 of 2013** 3 involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only Sections 341, 323, 324 and r/w Section 34 of the 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 second respondent, it appears to me that the the de facto complainant has 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_ **Crl.M.C.No. 1859 of 2013** 4 _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 or such like transactions or the offences_ **Crl.M.C.No. 1859 of 2013** 5 _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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 1859 of 2013** 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 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 -1 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 479 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS