Crl.M.C.No. 2207 of 2013

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** # **FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/7TH ASHADHA, 193** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2207 of 2013** ## **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.308/2012 OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY** **...** ## **CRIME NO. 542/2011 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION , KANNUR** **.....** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2:** **-----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. UNAISE.K,** **S/O. ABDUL SALAM, KOVVAPRATHU HOUSE, MADAYI AMSOM, MUTTAM BAZAR, KANNUR.** ## **2. K.FAIZE ,** **S/O. SIDHIQUE, KOVVAPRATHU HOUSE, MADAYI AMSOM, MUTTAM, NEAR JUMA MASJID, KANNUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** ## **2. VAISHAL , AGED 19 YEARS,** **S/O. SURESH, KILARKUDIYAN HOUSE, VELLACHAL P.O., VENGARA, KANNUR-670 305.** ## **3. PRAMEELA,** **KILARKUDIYAN HOUSE, VELLACHAL P.O., VENGARA, KANNUR-670 305.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.B.SANDEEP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** **Crl.MC.No. 2207 of 2013 ------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: --------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.542/2011 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION, KANNUR, WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS SC NO.308/12 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY.** **ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A3 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND 3RD RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A4 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ------------------------------------------------** **N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2207 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of June, 2013** ## **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 and 2 in S.C.No.308 of 2012 on the file of the District & Sessions Court, Thalassery which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.542 of 2011 of Payangadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash the proceedings in AnnexureA1 Final Report in Crime No.542 of 2011 of Payangadi Police Station, Kannur, and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.308 of 2012 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Thalassery as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation of the prosecution against the accused/petitioners is that, on 22/10/2011 they manhandled the second respondent by beating on face and twisted the ## Crl.M.C.No.2207 of 2013 :-2-: hand due to previous enmity and committed offence punishable under Sections 341 & 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. The second respondent is the de facto complainant and the 3[rd] respondent is his mother. Affidavits of respondents 2 and 3 are filed which are Annexures A3 and A4 respectively. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents 2 and 3. 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 dispute is settled amicably between the parties 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 and 3 who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the 2[nd] respondent, who is the de facto complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and he has no grievance against them. Crl.M.C.No.2207 of 2013 :-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 including Annexures-A3 and A4 affidavits. 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 under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 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 respondents 2 and 3, it appears to me that the injured/the victim/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 Crl.M.C.No.2207 of 2013 :-4-: ## decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)] in which 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2207 of 2013 :-5-: 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. According to me, 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 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. Crl.M.C.No.2207 of 2013 :-6-: In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.542 of 2011 of Payangadi Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.308 of 2012 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Thalassery. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge