Lankesh v. State of Kerala and Santosh Kumar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/7TH ASHADHA, 193** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2655 of 2013** **---------------------------------[S.T. NO.1619/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PUNALUR, CRIME NO. 310/2011 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION , KOLLAM]** **.....................** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **-------------------** **LANKESH, S/O.PUSHPARAJAN, LANKESH BHAVAN, KATTUMPURAM, VADAMAN MURI, ANCHAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN.** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **-----------------------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA,** **THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** ## **2. SANTHOSH KUMAR,** **S/O.BHADRAN PILLAI, KADAYATTUVILA VEEDU, NEAR HIGH SCHOOL, EROOR MURI, EROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 002.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. N. SURESH, R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SHAJI.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.2655/2013:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.310/2011 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2. THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.04.2013 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2655 of 2013** **------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of June, 2013.** ## **O R D E R** 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 accused in S.T.No.1619/11 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No. 310/11 of Anchal Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 323 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant to it in the above summary trial case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 24.3.2011 at about 7 p.m., the accused on account of previous enmity wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and used abusive words against him and also 2 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2655 of 2013** slapped on the left side of de facto complainant's face with his hand and thereby caused pain to him and the incident occurred at Road Junction in Thazhamel Muri, Anchal Village. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court, as evident from Annexure A2 affidavit dated 23.4.2013 sworn in by the 2[nd] respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] 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 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 3 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2655 of 2013** further against the petitioner and he has no grievance against the petitioner. 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 under Sections 341, 294(b) and 323 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 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no 4 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2655 of 2013** 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 Punjab** [2012 (4) KLT 108(SC)]. In Gian Singh's 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 5 **Crl.M.C.No.2655 of 2013** 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 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. 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2655 of 2013** 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 final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.T.No.1619/11 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur, in Crime No.310/2011 of Anchal Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge