HARIS v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANANDHU

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/19TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2052 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------L.P. NO. 189/2010 (CC.NO. 1228/2008) OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, PUNALUR CRIME NO. 413/2007 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** **-------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** **------------------------------------** **HARIS, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.ABDUL REHUMAN, HARIS MANZIL, ERATHU VADAKKU CHELIKKUZHY MURI, PATTAZHY VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SMT.K.G.SAROJINI** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :** **-------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2. ANANDHU, AGED 24 YEARS** **S/O.ANANDHAN, PRAVEEN NIVAS, SATHYAN MUKKU PIDVOOR MURI, PIDAVOOR VILLAGE - 689 695 PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 2052 of 2014 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :** **-------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN F.I.R NO.413/2007 DATED 30/10/2007.** **ANNEXURE A2: THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND DULY ATTESTED BY THE NOTARY. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **---------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A . TO JUDGE Mn** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.2052 of 2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of April, 2014 ## O R D E R This Criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in L.P.No.189/2010 (C.C.No.1228/2008) of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur, to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called the ‘Code’). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.413/2007 of Pathanapuram Police Station, which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent as defacto-complainant, alleging offences under Sections 294 (b), 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.1228/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur. Since the petitioner did not Crl.M.C. No.2052 of 2014 2 appear before the court, after complying with the formalities, the case was transferred to the register of long pending cases and it is now as L.P.No.189/2010 before that court. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The defacto-complainant has no grievance against the petitioner. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case as well. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they could not file the compounding application before the court below. So they have no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “In the interest of justice this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in L.P.No.189/2010 (CC .No.1228/2008) of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur in Crime No.413/2007 of Pathanapuram Police Station, Kollam District by allowing the above criminal miscellaneous case.” 3. 2[nd] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled and the defacto-complainant has no grievance against the petitioner Crl.M.C. No.2052 of 2014 3 at present and their relationship has been restored as before and he had filed Annexure-II affidavit stating these facts. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. So he prayed for allowing the application. 4. Learned Public prosecutor on instructions, as directed by this court, submitted that, except this case, there is no other case pending against the petitioner and opposed the application on the ground that he was absconding. 5. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent, a case was registered as Crime No.413/2007 of Pathanapuram Police Station, against the present petitioner, alleging offences punishable under Section 294(b), 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it was originally taken on file as C.C.No.1228/2008, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur, and Crl.M.C. No.2052 of 2014 4 since the petitioner did not appear before that court, it was transferred to the register of long pending cases and it is now pending as L.P.No.189/2010 before that court and now the matter has been settled between the parties. It is seen from the allegations in the final report that, the parties were students studying in Engineering College and at that time they belonged to KSU and SFI units of that College and due to some misunderstanding, this incident happened. Now they have restored the relationship. The matter has been settled due to the intervention of mediators and friends. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction, as neither the defacto-complainant nor his witnesses will support the prosecution. Further 2[nd] respondent has filed an affidavit stating that, in view of the settlement, he does not want to prosecute the petitioner as well, as the difference of opinion between them has been resolved on account of the settlement. Further it is a dispute between two individuals during the college days, Crl.M.C. No.2052 of 2014 5 while they were students and not an incident affecting the public as such. 6. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)]** , it has been held that: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case an no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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 mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony Crl.M.C. No.2052 of 2014 6 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that, the incident occurred at the time when they were students without knowing the consequences and now the matter has been settled between them, which resulted in restoration of their friendship and no possibility of conviction on account of the settlement and proceeding the case will only a wastage of judicial time, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the ‘Code’ has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the restoration Crl.M.C. No.2052 of 2014 7 of friendship between the parties and pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same. So, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in L.P.No.189/2010 (C.C.No.1228/2008) of Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtIII, Punalur (Crime No.413/2007 of Pathanapuram Police Station), as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, for necessary further action. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss