Gopinathan K.V. v. State of Kerala & Shameer

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/7TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3654 of 2013 ()** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 392/2007 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 294/2005 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **-------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------------------------** **GOPINATHAN .K.V, S/O K.A.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, KADAMBANAD HOUSE, KOTHAD POST, SOUTH CHITOOR, KOCHI-682027.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH, ERNAKULAM THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. SHAMEER, S/O.UMMER, AGED 29 YEARS, ALUMOOTILTHARA HOUSE, KUMBALAM KARA AND VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.J.YESUDAS** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 3654 of 2013 ()** **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NUMBER 294/2005 OF PANANGADU POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED AND EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3654 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of August, 2013** ## **ORDER** The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.392 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.294 of 2005 of Panangad Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A-1 Charge Sheet in Crime No.294 of 2005 of Panangad Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.392 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution allegation is that, while the petitioner was engaged in the night patrol and when he gave signal to stop the vehicle of the de facto complainant, he disobeyed the same and accordingly a Petty Case No.145 of Crl.M.C.No.3654 of 2013 :-2-: 2005 under Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act was registered against the second respondent and to counter blast the same the second respondent raised an allegation against the petitioner that he was manhandled by the petitioner and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. Now the case of the petitioner is that the entire matter is settled with the second respondent, who has sworn into Annexure A-2 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, during the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties 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] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto Crl.M.C.No.3654 of 2013 :-3-: complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he has no grievance against him. 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 including Annexure A-2 affidavit. 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 only under Sections 341 and 323 of I.P.C. 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] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/ accused in the Crl.M.C.No.3654 of 2013 :-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 Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108 ## (SC)] in which 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 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 :-5-: ## Crl.M.C.No.3654 of 2013 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. 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3654 of 2013 :-6-: 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 A-1 Charge Sheet in Crime No.294 of 2005 of Panangad Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.392 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj