Indu v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2013/2ND SRAVANA, 193** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3057 of 2013** **----------------------------------[L.P. NO.5/2006 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA, CRIME NO. 35/2001 OF CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT]** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **INDU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.JANARDHANAN, MARAKKASSERIL VEEDU, NADUVATHU CHERI, THEKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, CHAVARA SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP.** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. REVI, AGED 63 YEARS,** **S/O.KUNJIRAMAN, POURNAMI, MALIBHAGOM MURI, THKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.3057/2013:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.35/2001 OF CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B: NOTORISED AFFIDAVIT OF THE R.2. DTD. 19/07/2013.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.NO. 3057 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** ## Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 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 an accused in Crime No.35/2001 of Chavara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 427, 294(b) of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure-A Final Report in Crime No.35/2001 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station as it is an abuse of process of court and all subsequent proceedings pursuant in L.P.No.5/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 22/3/2013 at 6.15 p.m., the petitioner wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, by caught hold on his shirt and also assaulted him and there by caused a loss of Rs.250/-. It is further alleged that the petitioner abused him by using filthy words against him. Thus, the petitioner committed the offences punishable under **Crl.M.C.NO. 3057 of 2013** 2 Sections 341, 323, 427, 294(b) of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled between himself and the defacto complainant who is the second respondent herein. The second respondent, defacto complainant has sworn into Annexure-B affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second 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 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 second respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he has no grievance against her. **Crl.M.C.NO. 3057 of 2013** 3 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 341, 323, 427, 294(b) 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 second respondent, 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** **Crl.M.C.NO. 3057 of 2013** 4 ## **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 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_ **Crl.M.C.NO. 3057 of 2013** 5 _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 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.NO. 3057 of 2013** 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-A and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in in Crime No.35/2001 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS