Crl.M.C.No. 3690 of 2013 (Anish @ Ambadi Kannan & Harish E.P. v. Thankachan & State of Kerala)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/8TH BHADRA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3690 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 231/2012 of II ADDL.ASST. SESSIONS COURT,ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 731/2011 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2:** **-------------------------------** **1. ANISH @ AMBADI KANNAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. AMBADI, CHERUPULLI HOUSE, FACT, HARIJAN COLONY, KARIMUGAL.** **2. HARISH.E.P., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. PAPPI.E.K., ERAYYIL HOUSE, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU** **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------** **1. THANKACHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, PONNASSERY HOUSE, POYNTHARA COLONY, NADAMA, TRIPUNITHURA.** **2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, (CRIME 731/2011) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SIJI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3690 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **----------------------** **ANNEXURE.I. A COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONERS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM AS S.C. 231/2012.** **ANNEXURE. II. A PHOTOCOPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE PREPARED BY ASST. SURGEON, TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, TRIPUNITHURA.** **ANNEXURE.III. AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY R1, THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** **-------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **cl** ## **V.K. MOHANAN, J.** ...................................................... CRL.M.C.NO.3690 OF 2013 ...................................................... Dated this the 30[th] day of August, 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 the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.231/2012 on the file of the 2[nd] Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Ernakulam which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.731/2011 of Hill Palace Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 447,341,323 and 308 read with Section 34 of IPC with a prayer to quash Annexure-1 final report pending as S.C.No.231/2012 on the file of the 2[nd] Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Ernakulam as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that out of the animosity, the accused persons trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant at about 8.50 p.m on 20.3.2011 and the first accused caught hold of the defacto complainant on his neck and thereby restrained him and the defacto complainant was put into a well and as a result of which his head would have been hit against the ring of the well which would have resulted in his death and thus the accused 2 persons committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341,323 and 308 read with Section 34 of IPC. The present case of the petitioner is that being a neighbour of the petitioner, the entire dispute is settled with the first respondent, who is the defacto complainant and who accordingly sworn into Annexure A3 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 1st respondent. 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 an abuse of the process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent who on the basis of the specific instruction received from the first 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 3 the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition including Annexure-III affidavit. 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 447, 341,323 and 308 read with 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 real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the first respondent, it appears to me that 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 the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “57. The position that emerges from the 4 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 5 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 the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer 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 final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.231/2012 on the file of the 2[nd] Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crime No.731/2011 of Hill Palace Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. Sd/- **V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE.** cl