JITHIN TELLUS, SANEESH, SUBILASH S. NAIR, AMALA, PRANAVU v. STATE OF KERALA and SHIJU C. WARIER

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/8TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3664 of 2013 ()** ## **-----------------------------------CRIME NO. 957/2012 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** ## **..........** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-5:** **--------------------------------------------------** **1. JITHIN TELLUS, AGED 22 YEARS S/O TELLUS GEORGE, NEISSERY HOUSE, PARAVOOR KAVALA** - **ALUVA WEST VILLAGE.** **2. SANEESH, AGED 22 YEARS S/O SIVAN, KAPOORI ANNORPILLY HOUSE, KADUNGALOOR KARA KADUNGALOOR EAST VILLAGE.** **3. SUBILASH S. NAIR, AGED 25 YEARS** - **S/O SUKUMARAN NAIR, KUNEKALA HOUSE, KADUNGALOOR VILLAGE.** **4. AMALA, AGED 19 YEARS S/O RADHAKRISHNAN, KRISHNA LEELA HOUSE** - **KADUNGALOOR KARA, EAST, KADUNGALOOR VILLAGE.** **5. PRANAVU, AGED 21 YEARS S/O MURALIDHARAN NAIR, KOCHUMUTHEDATH HOUSE KADUNGALOOR KARAM, KADUNGALOOR EAST VILLAGE.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA)** ## **RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE:** **----------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION REPRESENTED** - **BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.** **2. SHIJU.C. WARIER,, AGED 35 YEARS S/O CHAKARAPANI WARIER, SREE HARI HOUSE KADUNGALOOR KARA, KADUNGALOOR VILLAGE 683108.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3664 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 :- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO 957/2012 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION DATED 27-12-2012** **ANNEXURE A2:- AFFIDAVIT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3664 of 2013 -------------------------------------Dated this the 30[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 petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.957 of 2012 of Binanipuram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 & 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A1 F.I.R. in Crime No.957 of 2012 of Binanipuram Police Station and all further proceedings thereto as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution case is that the de facto complainant is working as garland maker in Chattukulam temple at Kadungalloor in Aluva and on 26/12/2012 at about 9.30 Subhilash and Renjith came to the temple with garland where upon the de facto complainant asked to Renjith whether Subhilash touched the garland as he has pula in connection with death of his father. After this incident the Subhilash and three of his friends came and assaulted the de facto Crl.M.C.No.3664 of 2013 :-2-: complainant on face and right leg and thereafter the de facto complainant admitted and treated in the Government Hospital, Aluva. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 & 149 of I.P.C. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the above case the entire matter is settled with the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent and accordingly the second respondent has sworn into AnnexureA2 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the above crime, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. Crl.M.C.No.3664 of 2013 :-3-: 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 complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners 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 including Annexure-A2 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 143, 147, 323 & 149 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 Crl.M.C.No.3664 of 2013 :-4-: 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 petitioners/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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3664 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3664 of 2013 :-6-: 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-A1 F.I.R. in Crime No.957 of 2012 of Binanipuram Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj