Crl.M.C.No.3803 of 2013 and Crl.M.C.No.3826 of 2013

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/20TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3803 of 2013 () --------------------------CRIME NO. 313/2013 OF MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD** ## **----** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 7:** - **-----------------------** **1. KISHORE, S/O.DEVADASAN, VIPIN NIVAS, P.O.KADUKKAMKUNNAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678008.** **2. SUDHAKARAN S/O.BHASKARAN, CHERAD, MALAMPUZHA PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678651.** **3. LINESH, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, KADUKKAMKUNNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-678008.** **4. VIMODH, AGED 20 YEARS S/O.MANI, CHERAD, MALAMPUZHA PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678651.** **5. JINU AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KARAKKAD, MALAMPUZHA, PIN-678651.** **6. RAHUL, AGED 20 YEARS,S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KADUKKAMKUNNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-PIN-678008.** **7. RAJESH, S/O.RAJAGOPALAN,** - **MANTHAKKAD, POST MALAMPUZHA PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678651.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)** **RTESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **2. MANU, S/O.MURUKAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, SASTHA COLONY, MANTHAKKAD, MALAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-PIN-678651.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-09-2013, ALONG WITH CRMC. 3826/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** **APPENDIX** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3803 of 2013 ()** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, CRIME NO. 313/13. ANNEXURE 2: AFFIDAVIT OF THE R2 DT 21/8/2013.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **BP** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos.3803 and 3826 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of September, 2013.** ## **O R D E R** As the above two M.Cs. are directed against case and counter case and as the dispute, as per the submission of the counsel, was settled, the above two M.Cs. are heard together and being disposed by this common order. Crl.M.C.No.3803/13 is directed against Crime No.313/13 of Malampuzha police station at the instance of the accused therein and the 2[nd] respondent herein is the de facto complainant in the above crime. Whereas, Crl.M.C.No.3826 of 2013 is filed against Crime No.314/13 at the instance of accused therein and the 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant in the above crime and he is the 1[st] petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3803/13. The above two crimes are registered as case and counter, connected with the incident taken place at 13.45 hrs. on 23.3.2013 and the **Crl.M.C.Nos.3803 and 3826 of 2013** 2 reason for the incident was due to previous animosity. However, as the matter is settled out of court, I am not proposed to go into the details of the allegation against the petitioners in the above cases in the above crimes. Showing the settlement arrived and expressing no objection in quashing FIR against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3803/13, the de facto complainant therein, who is the 2[nd] respondent in the above M.C. had sworn into Annexure 2 affidavit. Similarly, the de facto complainant in Crime No.314/13, who is the 2[nd] respondent in Crl.M.C.No.3826/13 had also sworn into Annexure B affidavit in the same line. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above crimes, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crimes. Therefore, the **Crl.M.C.Nos.3803 and 3826 of 2013** 3 continuation of the proceedings in the above crimes 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 submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainants do not intends 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 petitions. In the given facts and circumstances of the cases 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 petitions. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above cases are only under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 308 r/w 149 of IPC, which are more or **Crl.M.C.Nos.3803 and 3826 of 2013** 4 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 respondents, it appears to me that the de facto complainants 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 Gian Singh's case, 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 **Crl.M.C.Nos.3803 and 3826 of 2013** 5 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 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 cases and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present cases, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present cases. 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 **Crl.M.C.Nos.3803 and 3826 of 2013** 6 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, these Criminal M.Cs. can be allowed granting the reliefs as sought for. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are allowed, quashing Annexure-1 FIR (Crl.M.C.No.3803/13) in Crime No.313/2013 of Malampuzha police station and Annexure-A FIR (Crl.M.C.No.3826/13) in Crime No.314/2013 of Malampuzha police station and and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners thereto. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge