Crl.M.C.No.2792/2014 & Crl.M.C.No.2796/2014

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/5TH ASHADHA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2792 of 2014 ()** ## **--------------------------CRIME NO. 432/2014 OF CHERPULASSERY POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT -----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS 1 & 2 :** **---------------------------------------------------------** **1. USMAN, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT THANKAYATHIL VEEDU, PANNIYAMKURUSSI P.O, CHERPULASSERY,** **OTTAPALAM,PALAKKAD -679 322.** **2. MOHAMMED FAISAL,S/O.MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT THANKAYATHIL VEEDU, PANNIYAMKURUSSI P.O, CHERPULASSERY,** **OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD -679 322.** - ***ADDL.PETITIONERS 3 TO 6 IMPLEADED** - ***P3: RIYAS,S/O.HAMSA,AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT POTTAKULAM HOUSE, PANNIYAMKURUSSI.P.O., CHERPULASSERY, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 322.** - ***P4: JAMAL, S/O.HASSAN,AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULAKKUNNATH HOUSE, PANNIYAMKURUSSI.P.O., CHERPULASSERY, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 322** - ***P5: SALIM, S/O.MONUPPA, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANAKAKKAL HOUSE, PANNIYAMKURUSSI.P.O., CHERPULASSERY, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 322.** - ***P6: SAINUDHEEN, S/O. AYOOB, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALAKKUNNATH HOUSE, PANNIYAMKURUSSI.P.O., CHERPULASSERY, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 322.** ***ADDL.PETITIONERS P3 TO P6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/6/2014 IN CRL.M.A.NO.5792/2014.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SANIL JOSE** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/NOT PARTY COMPLAINANT/INJURED :** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 030** **2/-** **sts** **-2-** **CRMC.NO.2792/2014** **2. ANOOP P.,S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY,AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT POOLAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRIMBALASSERY P.O, NELLAYA, PALAKKAD -679 335.** **3. HARIPRASAD,S/O.SIVASANKARAN, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'DEVI PRASAD', THRITHALA, PALAKKAD -679 534.** **4. RANJITH,S/O.SADANANDAN,AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANGADATH HOUSE, KARATTUKURUSSI, CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD- 679 503.** **5. REMA C.P.,W/O.KRISHNADAS, RESIDING AT KRISHNA CHAITHNYAM, PENGATTIRI, NELLAYA, OTTAPALAM TALUK,** **PALAKKAD -679 335.** **6. USHA. P,W/O.KRISHNAKUMAR, RESIDING AT KUNDUPURAM KUNNAM, PARASSERY P.O, PERINGOD, PALAKKAD- 678 631.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2014, ALONG WITH CRMC.NO. 2796/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2792 of 2014 ()** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **----------------------------------------------** **ANNEX -A. COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT HAS BEEN REGISTERED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPULASSERY POLICE STATION, DATED 26.4.14. ANNEX- B. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.5.14. ANNEX- C. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.5.14. ANNEX- D. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.5.14. ANNEX- E. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.5.14. ANNEX- F. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.5.14.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.Nos.2792 &2796 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 26[th] day of June, 2014. ## **O R D E R** Crl.M.C.No.2792/14 was filed by the accused in Crime No.432/2014 of Cherpulassery police station while Crl.M.C.No.2796/2014 was filed by the accused persons in Crime No.433/2014 of the same police station for quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 2. The common case of the petitioners in these petitions is that on 25.4.014 at about 11.30 a.m there was some incident happened in Geethanjalai Automobiles in which accused in Crime No.433/2014 were working and there was some scuffle occurred between them as there was some dispute arose regarding the work done in respect of a vehicle which is eligible for insurance claim in which both of them sustained injuries. On the basis of the statement given by the second respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2792/2014, Crime No.432/2014 was registered against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.Nos.2792 &2796 of 2014 2 Crl.M.C.No.2796/2014 alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294 (b), 323, 341, 427 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2796/2014, Crime No.433/2014 was registered against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2792/2014 alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 326 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation is going on in both these cases. Now the matter has been settled between the parties, on account of the intervention of well wishers of both the parties and they do not want to prosecute each other. But it is in the crime stage and some of the offences are non compoundable in nature. Neither the court nor the police will drop the proceedings. On account of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well. So, the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following reliefs: ## Crl.M.C.No.2792/14 “For these grounds and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing this Honourable Court may be pleased to quash Annexure-A First Information 3 Crl.M.C.Nos.2792 &2796 of 2014 Report and all further proceedings thereto in Crime Nos.432/ 2014 on the file of the Cherpulassery Police Station, Palakkad which is within the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam, in the interest of justice” ## Crl.M.C.2796/2014 “For these grounds and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing this Honourable Court may be pleased to quash Annexure-A First Information Report and all further proceedings thereto in Crime Nos.433/2014 on the file of the Cherpulassery Police Station, Palakkad which is within the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam, in the interest of justice” 3. Originally in Crl.M.C.No.2792/2014, there were only two petitioners. Thereafter additional petitioners 3 to 6 were impleaded as per order in Crl.M.A.No.5792/2014 and additional respondents 2 to 6 have filed additional affidavits also stating that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings as against them also. The respondents in both these cases, who are respectively defacto complainant and the injured have appeared through counsel and submitted that the Crl.M.C.Nos.2792 &2796 of 2014 4 matter has been settled between the parties and they do not want to prosecute each other and their original relationship has been restored on account of the settlement. They have also filed affidavits stating these facts. The counsel for the petitioners in both these cases submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. So, they prayed for allowing the petitions. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners. But since grave offences have been included, it is not a fit case to invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings at this stage. 5. It is an admitted fact that the motor cycle of the 2[nd] respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2796/2014 was entrusted with Geethanjali Auto Mobiles, of which petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2796/2014 were employees. It is also an admitted fact that there was some altercation occurred between them in connection with the insurance claim of this vehicle and that resulted in scuffle and quarrel between them, in which some of the petitioners in both the cases have sustained injuries including fracture. It is also an admitted fact that Crime Crl.M.C.Nos.2792 &2796 of 2014 5 Nos.432/2014 and 433/2014 were registered by Cherpulassery police station in respect of the same incident on the basis of the statement given by the respective defacto complainant and injured alleging various offences. Now the mater has been settled between the parties. The incident itself had been happened due to some dispute regarding the amount assessed for the purpose of getting insurance claim of the motor vehicle belonging to the second respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2796/2014 and now that has been settled between the parties. So they do not want to prosecute each other and, according to them, their old business relationship has also restored due to intervention of mediators and well wishers. In view of that fact, the matter has been settled between the parties, neither the defacto complainant nor the injured in both the cases are likely to cooperate with the investigating officer so as to enable him to file final report or even if any final report is filed on the basis of the evidence collected, that also will not going to an end in conviction as petitioners are not going to support the case of the prosecution. Further, even from the allegations, it is clear that it is not a dispute of public interest but a private dispute regarding assessment of repair charges to the motor cycle Crl.M.C.Nos.2792 &2796 of 2014 6 which resulted in the incident and that has been settled due to intervention of mediators and well wishers. So no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case and it will be only wastage of judicial time as well. ## 6. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State** **of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly 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 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. 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 proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings 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 an 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.” Crl.M.C.Nos.2792 &2796 of 2014 7 7. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that it is a private dispute regarding repair charges payable for a motor cycle, which was entrusted in a workshop which resulted in the registration of crime, which later due to the intervention of well wishers of both the parties, settled the dispute between the parties and their original relationship has been restored and no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as conviction in such cases will be remote, this Court feels that this is a fit case to invoke the power under Section 482 has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote settlement arrived at between the parties due to intervention of mediators which resulted in restoration of their original relationship and pendency of this case will not be a hurdle for the same. So these petitions are allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.432/2014 of Cherpalassery police station as against petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2792/2014 and in Crime No.433/2014 of the same police station as against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2796/2014 are quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam so as to inform the Crl.M.C.Nos.2792 &2796 of 2014 8 same to the concerned police station for further necessary action in this regard. **Sd/-** **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.Nos.2792 &2796 of 2014 9