Karan Singh v. Sathyendrakumar and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/29TH MAGHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1184 of 2014** **-----------------------------------** **CC 302/2012 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 929/2012 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION , KASARGOD.** **-----------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** **------------------------------------** **KARAN SINGH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. OMPRAKASH, BARSANIPATTY HOUSE, BAJIRPUR, RAJASTHAN, NOW RESIDING AT SULFIKAR QUARTERS, MOGRALPUTHUR VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE :** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. SATHYENDRAKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. RAMBABAR, JATMAZI, BHARATPUR, RAJASTHAN, NOW RESIDING AT SULFIKAR QUARTERS, MOGRALPUTHUR VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.MINI.V.A. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** **Crl.MC.No. 1184 of 2014 ----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **---------------** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CR.929/2012 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2 : AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.02.2014 SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **----------------------------------------------** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M. C. No.1184 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of February, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.302/2012 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, to quash the proceedings, recording the composition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.929/2012 of Kasaragod police Station, which was registered on the basis of a statement given by the defacto-complainant, who is the first respondent herein, alleging offences under Section 326 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that, on 26.07.2012, at about 8.30 a.m., due to the previous enmity of the petitioner with the defactocomplainant, abused him with obscene language and 2 Crl. M. C. No.1184 of 2014 assaulted him with a wooden stick and caused grevious hurt and thereby he had committed the offence punishable under Section 294(b) and 326 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, where it was taken on the file as C.C.No.302/12 and it is pending before that court. Later due to the intervention of mediators and well-wishers, the matter has been settled between the defacto-complainant and the petitioner. The defacto-complainant does not want to prosecute the case. Since the offence alleged are noncompoundable in nature, the petitioner has no other option but to approach this court to quash the proceedings, invoking the power under Section 482 of the 'Code', So the petitioner field this application, seeking the following relief: “It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.302/2012 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod as against the petitioner/accused person in this petition, in the interest of justice.” 3 Crl. M. C. No.1184 of 2014 3. First respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties and the defacto-complainant has no objection in quashing the proceedings and he had also filed AnnexureA2 affidavit stating these facts. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2[nd] respondent on instructions submitted that, both the petitioner and the defacto-complainant are natives of Rajasthan and there is no other case against the petitioner in Kasaragod District. 5. It is an admitted fact that both the petitioner and the first respondent are natives of Rajasthan and they came to Kasaragod for eking out their livelihood. It is also an admitted fact that in respect of an incident happend on 26.07.2012, on the basis of the statement given by first respondent, Kasaragod police registered a case against the petitioner as Crime No.929/2012, alleging offences under Section 294(b) and 326 of Indian Penal Code and after 4 Crl. M. C. No.1184 of 2014 investigation Annexure-A1 final report was filed and it was taken on the file as C.C.No.302/2012 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, and it is pending before that court. It is also an admitted fact that the matter has been settled between the defacto-complainant, injured and the petitioner and he had filed Annexure-A2 affidavit stating that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of the relatives and well-wishers and they are now living in harmony and working together and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner. ## 6. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** it is 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 Crl. M. C. No.1184 of 2014 5 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 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. It is an incident happened due to some alteration occurred between the petitioner and the first respondent due to some mis-understanding, which resulted in the injury being caused to the defacto-complainant and 6 Crl. M. C. No.1184 of 2014 registering the case against him. Both are coming from Rajasthan and now they have settled the disputes between them and residing together in the same quarters and working together amicably. In the decision reported in Gian Singh's case (supra), it has been observed that, if a dispute arose due to some private incident, which is of not public importance and the matter has been settled between the parties, due to the intervention of mediators and wellwishers and they are living in harmony, then that should be promoted by accepting the composition and the High Court must to invoke the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' and quash the proceedings, as no purpose will be served by retaining the case and allowing the case to continue, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal back ground as well. So considering the circumstances, I feel that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' has Crl. M. C. No.1184 of 2014 7 to be invoked to promote harmony, that has been restored on account of the settlement between the parties arrived at due to the intervention of family members, relatives and well-wishers and quash the proceedings against the petitioner. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.302/2012 (Crime No.929/2012 of Kasaragod Police Station) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, 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