Crl.M.C.No.2528 of 2014

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2014/7TH JYAISHTA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2528 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------IN CC 846/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR CRIME NO. 160/2011 OF ENATH POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA** ## **-------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. ROBIN VARGHESE, AGED 29 YEARS,** - **S/O.VARGHESE, KANNANKARA THEKKETHIL, CHOORAKODU.P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.691 523.** **2. JIJO @ JOHN K.GEORGE, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.JOSE DANIEL, PLEASANT HOUSE, CHOORAKODU.P.O. ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.691 523.** **3. DEEPU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, DIVYA SADANAM, MANAKKALA.P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 691 523.** **4. JAIJU ABRAHAM, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.RAJU ABRAHAM, KOTTARETHU, CHOORAKODU.P.O. ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 691 523.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **----------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (CC NO.846 OF 2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT ADOOR), PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **2. Y.JOSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.YOHANNAN, KALATHIVILATHEKKETHIL, KILIVAYAL PALLICKAL VAYALA.P.O., ERATHU VILLAGE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 691 527.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUJITH SOMASEKHARAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** **Crl.MC.No. 2528 of 2014 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CC NO.846 OF 2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR.** **ANNEXURE 2: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN CC NO.846 OF 2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. ---------------------------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **BP** **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2528 of 2014 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of May, 2014** ## **ORDER** This is an application filed by accused numbers 1 to 4 in C.C No.846/2011 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are arrayed as accused numbers 1 to 4 in C.C No.846/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. Crime was registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant, second respondent herein, as Crime No.160/2011 of Enathu Police Station of Pathanamthitta district alleging commission of offences u/s 341, 323, 427 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C No.846/2011 and is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. Now, the matter has been settled Crl.M.C No.2528/2014 2 between the parties. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case. Further, no possibility of conviction also in such cases. Some of the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature and they could not file an application before the court below. So they have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief: _i) Quash Annexure 1 charge and all further proceedings there from in the light of Annexure 2 affidavit sworn by the 2[nd] respondent / injured._ 3. Second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of mediators and on account of the settlement, petitioner does not want to prosecute the respondent and he had filed Annexure A2 affidavit stating these facts. 4. Counsel for petitioner also submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by keeping the case on file and no conviction will be possible as well. Crl.M.C No.2528/2014 3 5. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions as directed by this court submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners but opposed the application. 6. Heard both sides. 7. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent Crime No.160/2011 of Enathu Police Station was registered against the petitioners alleging offences u/s 341, 323, 427 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C No.846/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor and it is pending before that court. In the mean time the matter has been settled between the parties and the second respondent, de facto complainant, has filed Annexure A2 affidavit stating that he had given the names of petitioners under some misconception and he has no grievance against the petitioners and the matter has been settled between the parties due to the Crl.M.C No.2528/2014 4 intervention of mediators as well. Considering the fact that the matter has been now settled, there is no possibility of any conviction being entered in such cases. It will be only a futile attempt to keep the case on file and allow the case for a regular disposal and it will amount to wastage of judicial time. 8. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v State of Punjab** **(2012(4) KLT 108(SC),** the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: _“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not_ Crl.M.C No.2528/2014 5 _private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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, mercantile, 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 case, 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”_ 9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between Crl.M.C No.2528/2014 6 the parties and on account of the settlement conviction in such cases is remote and allowing the case to continue will only amount to wastage of judicial time, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C No.846/2011(Crime No.160/2011 of Enathu Police Station) on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned immediately for necessary further action in the matter. **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** vdv