Crl.M.C.No. 3196 of 2013

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/25TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3196 of 2013 ()** ## **--------------------------CRIME NO. 623/2012 OF PEERUMEDU POLICE STATION , IDUKKI DISTRICT ------------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 14:** **----------------------------------------------------------** **1. JOMON @ ANEESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, 31ST MILE BHAGAM, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **2. AJITH, S/O.SALIM,** - **NJARAKKAMATTATHIL HOUSE, PUNJAVAYAL KARA, ERUMELIVADAKKU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **3. BINU, AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.JOY, VELAMPARAMBIL VEEDU, NEAR PAINGANAPALLY, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **4. REJO JOSE, AGED 24 YEARS,** - **S/O.JOSE, KARIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM POLICE QUARTERS, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **5. PINTO JOSEPH THOMAS,** - **S/O.THOMAS, THOTTIPPATTU VEEDU, 31ST MILE KARAYIL, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **6. SHERIN,S/O.MUHAMMED ALI,** - **PULIKKUNNU BHAGATHUTHAZATHU VEEDU, KARINILAM KARA, ERUMELIVADAKKU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **7. RIJO, AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.THOMAS, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, 31ST MILE BHAGAM, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **8. NITHIN @ AJARA, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.EAPPEN, PEEDIKAYIL VEEDU, PAINGANA BHAGAM, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **9. NITHESH, AGED 22 YEARS,** - **S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN, THANNIMOOTTIL VEEDU, PUNJAVAYAL KARA, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **2/-** **sts** **-2-** **CRMC.NO.3196/2013** **10. VISHNU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAJU, ANJILIMOOTTIL VEEDU, MUNDAKAYAM TOWN BHAGAM, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **11. AKHIL, AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.SURESH BABU, KOCHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, PAINGANA BHAGAM, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **12. ANEESH, S/O.SIVARAJAN, ASWANI BHAVAN, VARIKAN BHAGAM, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **13. NITHIN MOON PETER, S/O.MOONI, PARICKAL HOUSE, NEAR POST OFFICE, MUNDAKAYAM, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **14. HARIS, S/O.HASSAN KUNJU, PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, ERUMELI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & INJURED:** **----------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERUMEDU.** **2. JOJO, AGED 29 YEARS,S/O.NAZARUDEEN, THENAMMACKAL HOUSE, 1ST MILE BHAGAM, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM. PIN-686 507.** **3. ANEESH,AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ,225, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPALLY,KOTTAYAM. PIN-686 507.** **4. ANEESH.P.K, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.ABDU KAREEM, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPALLY.P.O., KOTTAYAM. PIN-686 507.** **5. ANOOP M @ ABDUL JALEEL, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.KANI, VAZHEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPALLY, PIN-686 507.** - **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts** **Crl.MC.No. 3196 of 2013 () ----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **---------------------------------------------** **ANNEX I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.623/2012 OF PEERUMEDU POLICE STATION. ANNEX II: TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT DATED 25.6.2012. ANNEX III: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/7/2013 ANNEX IV: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.7.2013. ANNEX V: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.7.2013. ANNEX VI: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.7.2013.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3196 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of August, 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 to 14 in Crime No.623 of 2012 of Peerumedu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 395 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-I F.I.R. in Crime No.623 of 2012 of Peerumedu Police Station and all further proceedings thereto as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation is that on 24/6/2012 at about 7.30 p.m., while the de facto complainant, along with 3 friends (respondents 3 to 5) were travelling in a motor car, on the way to Kanjirapally, the accused people obstructed them, by putting their vehicle across the road, caused hurt on them, and also caused damages to the vehicle. They also kidnapped one Anoop and took away their vehicle. Thus, according to the prosecution, the petitioners have committed the offences Crl.M.C.No.3196 of 2013 :-2-: punishable under Sections 365 and 395 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioners is that, as the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 are students, they have amicably settled the disputes and they do not want to prosecute each other. Accordingly, the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein has sworn into Annexure-III affidavit and similarly respondents 3 to 5, who are injured have also sworn into separate affidavits as Annexures-IV to VI. 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 crime, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties 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 respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents Crl.M.C.No.3196 of 2013 :-3-: submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and the injured do 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 petition including Annexures-III to VI 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 365 and 395 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 Crl.M.C.No.3196 of 2013 :-4-: matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the respondents, it appears to me that the injured and 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3196 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3196 of 2013 :-6-: 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-I F.I.R. in Crime No.623 of 2012 of Peerumedu Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge