Joemon Joseph v. State of Kerala and Kalady Police Station Sub-Inspector and Tinu Tharayil

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/23RD PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5055 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 781/2013 OF KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **......** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **JOEMON JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, EDATHALA HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SMT.SMITHA BABU.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 574.** *** ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED** **3. TINU THARAYIL, S/O.SURESH BABU, THARAYIL HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 574.** *** ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/03/2014 IN CRL.MA. NO.2471/2014.** **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. ADDL. R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5055 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNX.A - TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R AND F.I.S IN CRIME NO.781/2013 OF THE KALADY POLICE STATION DATED 02-08-2013.** **ANNX.B ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 11/03/2014.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.5055 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is field by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.781/2013 of Kalady Police Station, registered on the basis of the statement given by the additional 3[rd] respondent, alleging offence under Section 506(i) of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report has been filed. The petitioner filed the petition originally for quashing the first information report registered in respect of this incident. Later it is seen from the statement of the investigating officer that, investigation was completed and final report was field. On that basis a report was called for and the petitioner filed this criminal miscellaneous case, seeking the following relief: Crl. M.C. No.5055 of 2013 2 “It is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.781/2013, pursuant to Annexure-A FIR of the Kalady Police Station, in the interests of justice.” 2. Later the additional 3[rd] respondent was impleaded, who is the defacto-complainant as per order in Crl.M.A.No.2471/2014. He entered appearance through counsel and also field affidavit, as Annexure-B, stating that, the matter has been settled and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, except this case, there is no other case against the petitioner. 4. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the defacto-complainant/additional 3[rd] respondent, Crime No.781/2013 of Kalady Police Station was registered against the petitioner, alleging offence under Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. It was at that 3 Crl. M.C. No.5055 of 2013 time, the petitioner filed this petition to quash the further proceedings on the basis of that first information report. When the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, final report has already been field and a report has called for from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor, and a report has been received, in which it has stated that, final report has been filed in the case and it was taken on file as C.C.No.2316/2013 and summons has been issued to the accused to appear on 17.07.2014. It is at that time, the matter has been settled between the parties and the defacto-complainant entered appearance through counsel, on his impleadment as additional respondent and field Annexure-B affidavit. 5. In the decision reported **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)]** , it reads as follows: “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 Crl. M.C. No.5055 of 2013 4 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 predominatingly 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 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 Crl. M.C. No.5055 of 2013 5 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.” 6. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that, the matter has been settled between the parties and no purpose will be served by allowing the prosecution to continue, in view of the settlement and it will only amount to wastage of judicial time, so, this court feels that, it is a fit case, where the power under Section 482 of the Code has to be invoked to quash further proceedings to promote the settlement entered into between the parties, due to the intervention of mediators. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.2316/2013 (Crime No.781/2013 of Kalady Police Station) on the file of the Judicial First Class 6 Crl. M.C. No.5055 of 2013 Magistrate Court No-I, Perumbavoor, as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for necessary further action in this regard. Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss