Crl.M.C.No.4258 of 2009

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2013/31ST JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4258 of 2009 ( )** **---------------------------CP. NO.61/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALAPPUZHA.** ## **.............** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 8: -----------------------------------------------** **1. SUGUNANANTHAN @ SUGUNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KESHAVAN, VAZHAVELIL VEEDU, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **2. P.M.JOHNACHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, PULICKAL VEEDU, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **3. VENU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.VISHWAMBARAN, KANDATHIL VEEDU, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** ## **4. ROSMI JONACHAN,** - **AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.JOHNACHAN, PULICKAL VEEDU, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **5. K.J.MARIAMMA, W/O.JOHNACHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, PULICKAL VEEDU, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **6. SARASWATHY, W/O.SUGUNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, VAZHAVELIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **7. SURAJ, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SUGUNAN, VAZHAVELIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **8. SUDHEESH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SUGUNAN, VAZHAVELIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4258 of 2009** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. JAMES, S/O.MATHEW,** **AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, PULICKAL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4258 of 2009** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.P. NO.61/2009 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALAPPUZHA. ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/01/2009 IN CRL.M.C. NO.4525/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. NO.204/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALAPPUZHA. ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE SCHOOL CERTIFICATE OF THE SECOND PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET IN C.P. NO.61/2009 OF JFCM-I, ALAPPUZHA.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 4258 of 2009** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 21[st] day of June, 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 accused Nos. 1 to 8 in C.P.No.61 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha for the offences punishable under Sections 307,326,327,506(II) of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 complaint in C.P.No.61 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the dispute between the petitioners herein and the complainant is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the second respondent preferred a complaint to the Alappuzha North Police Station alleging that on 8.10.2007 at about 8.30 a.m., the accused trespassed into his compound with dangerous weapons and destroyed Crl.M.C.No.4258 of 2009 :-2-: the plants and also alleged that the first accused had inflicted an injury over the head portion of the complainant with a sword and seventh accused had inflicted injury on him. On the basis of the above information, Crime No.533 of 2007 was registered in the Alappuha North Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324,447,427 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and on taking cognizance upon such report, C.C.No.204 of 2008 was instituted in the trial court viz., the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha. The Police report therein is produced along with Crl.M.C. as Annexure A3. While the above charge was pending, the second respondent herein preferred a private complaint/protest complaint in the very same court and the learned Magistrate, after conducting the enquiry, took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 307,326,327 and 506(II) I.P.C. and thus C.P.No.61 of 2009 is instituted. Thus, the above M.C. is filed with a prayer to quash Crl.M.C.No.4258 of 2009 :-3-: Annexure A1 complaint upon which C.P.No.61 of 2009 was instituted. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 4. Both the counsel are unanimous in their submission that during the pendency of the above Crl.M.C. before this Court, the matter has been settled out of court, especially when the second petitioner, who is the second accused in the above C.P. is the brother of the second respondent herein/the complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that in the above M.C., the second respondent has filed Crl.M.A.No.2700 of 2013 producing certain affidavits including that of the second respondent and other injured. The above petition was filed to accept the above affidavits in the above M.C. which was allowed by this Court. Thus, on a perusal of the above affidavits, it is seen that the matter is settled out of court and the de facto complainant and the other injured have no further Crl.M.C.No.4258 of 2009 :-4-: grievance against the petitioners herein and they are not proposed to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners/accused. As the petitioners and the de facto complainant and the injured are neighbours, according to me, it is only just and proper to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners so as to continue the harmony now arrived between the parties to the dispute. 5. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the v. Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], in which 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_ :-5-: ## Crl.M.C.No.4258 of 2009 _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 predominatingly 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........”_ Crl.M.C.No.4258 of 2009 :-6-: 6. 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. Thus, I am of the view that 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 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 – Crl.M.C.No.4258 of 2009 :-7-: A1 complaint in C.P.No.61/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha and all further proceedings thereto including the proceedings in the above committal proceedings. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ ## Crl.M.C.No.4258 of 2009 :-8-: