Freddy and Rajesh v. State of Kerala and Rajeev and Anitha Rajeev

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/4TH BHADRA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 4868 of 2014** **---------------------------------[C.C.NO.1222/2010 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, ERNAKULAM, CRIME NO. 121/2010 OF MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM]** **...............** ## **PETITIONERS/COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------------** **1. FREDDY, S/O. GRATEN, AGED 29, KADAVIL (H), COMPRESSION MUKKU, PANAMBUKADU, ERNAKULAM-682 504.** **2. RAJESH, S/O. PARAMU, AGED 34, PANAMBUKADU, ERNAKULAM-682 504.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS, SMT.DAYANA DAVID, SRI.K.S.JIJO.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT, CHARGE WITH NO.2:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. RAJEEV , S/O. MOHANAN,AGED 35, JUTHANADAPPU HOUSE, VALLARPADAM, MULAVUKADU, PIN-682 504.** **3. ANITHA RAJEEV, AGED 23, W/O. RAJEEV, JUTHANADAPPU HOUSE, VALLARPADAM, MULAVUKADU, PIN-682 504.** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C.NO. 4868 OF 2014:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE IN C.C NO.1222/2010.** **ANNEXURE A2 : ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT STATING THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT.** **ANNEXURE A3 : ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT STATING THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** **V.K.MOHANAN, J =========================== Crl.M.C No.4868 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 26[th] day of August, 2014** ## **ORDER** 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 in C.C.No.1222/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, I, Ernakulam, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.121/2010 of Mulavukadu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 448 and 2949b) r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 final charge filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Ernakulam as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioners are in inimical terms with the respondents 2 and 3 in connection with a police complaint filed by the party respondents against one of the **Crl.M.C No.4868 of 2014** 2 friends of the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners assaulted 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents and they suffered injuries and thus, the accused have committed the aforesaid offences and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. 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 matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent, submitted that the above respondents, who are the victims does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no **Crl.M.C No.4868 of 2014** 3 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 petition. 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 under Sections 324, 323, 448 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 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 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, it appears to me that the victims have no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the **Crl.M.C No.4868 of 2014** 4 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** v. **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 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 the criminal or power to quash proceeding 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_ **Crl.M.C No.4868 of 2014** 5 _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........”_ 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 **Crl.M.C No.4868 of 2014** 6 have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer wastage 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 -A1 final charge and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.1222/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Ernakulam in Crime No.121/2010 of Mulavukadu Police Station. Sd/- ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge