Hareesh v. Santhamma, Ajayakumar, Rajkumar, The Sub Inspector, Perunad Police Station, and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/27TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2418 of 2013 ()** **-----------------------------------** **CC 612/2001 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RANNI. CRIME NO. 187/2000 OF PERUNAD POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA** **.......** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** **HAREESH,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI, VATTAPARMBIL VEETIL, KOONAMKARA MURI, PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA & DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH** ## **RESPOMDENT/COMPLAINANT / DE - FACTO COMPLAINANT /STATE:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. SANTHAMMA, AGED 52 YEARS D/O.AMMINI MELEDATHU MADTHUMOOZHY PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA & DISTRICT - (CW 1) 689 711.** **2. AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.SUKUMARAN, MELEDATHU MADTHUMOOZHY, PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA & DISTRICT - (CW 2). 689 711.** **3. RAJKUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, MELEDATHU MADTHUMOOZHY PERUNAD, VILLAGE RANNI TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA & DISTRICT(CW 3) 689 711.** **4. THE SUB INSPECTOR, PERUNAD POLICE STATION. 689 711.** **5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.682 031.** **R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNY K.GEORGE R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.JUSTUS** **R4 & R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2418 of 2013 ()** **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-------------------------------------------** **A1:- COPY OF THE ACCUSED COPY IN CRIME NO.187/2000 OF PERUNAD POLICE STATION.** ## **A2:- AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND THE PETITIONER** ## **A3:- COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** **-------------------------------------------** **NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2418 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 17[th] 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 petitioner, who is an accused in Crime No.187 of 2000 of Perunad Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324 & 427 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash all proceedings in Annexure 1 L.P. No.44/2006 before the JFCM, Ranni, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioner, who was a member of the unlawful assembly trespassed in to the house of the defacto complainant and slapped, kicked and hit with bricks on him and pelted stones on the house of the CW 1 to 3. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. 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 matter is **Crl.M.C.No. 2418 of 2013** 2 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 respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he has 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 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 only Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324 & 427 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is **Crl.M.C.No. 2418 of 2013** 3 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 complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner 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 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_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2418 of 2013** 4 _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 entire_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2418 of 2013** 5 _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 have any fruitful 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2418 of 2013** 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 -1 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No. 187/2000 of Perunad Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS