## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN**
## **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013/13TH ASHADHA, 1935**
## **Crl.MC.No. 735 of 2013 ()**
**--------------------------------SC 567/2011 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL. CRIME NO. 427/2010 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM. .......**
**PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3:**
**----------------------------------------------------**
**LIBI,AGED 22 YEARS S/O. BABU, VATTAVILA VEEDU, MELKADAKKAVOOR DESOM CHIRAYINKIZHU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**
**BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN**
## **RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE**
**------------------------------------------------------------------------**
## **1. JAYAN, AGED 32 YEARS**
**S/O. GOAPALAKRISHNAN, KUKKUMAKUNNU VEEDU, MANATHIMOOLA MELKADAKKAVOOR DESOM, CHIRAYINKIZHU VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**
## **2. THE STATE OF KERALA,**
- **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.**
**R1 BY ADV. SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**tss**
## **CRMC. NO.735/2013**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS**
**ANX.A1:- PHOTOCOPY OF THE FI STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 427/2010 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION.**
**ANX.A2:-PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 427/2010 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION.**
**ANX.A3:- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADMISSION CERTIFICATE FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION.**
## **ANX.A4:- PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 15-10-12.**
## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS**
## **NIL**
## **TRUE COPY**
## **P.A. TO JUDGE**
**tss**
## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.**
## **-----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.735 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 04[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 accused No.3 in S.C.No.567 of 2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.427 of 2010 of Kadakkavoor Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 & 308 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.567 of 2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal as the matter is settled out of court.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 09/07/2010 at 3.15 p.m. the accused with an intention to cause injury on the de facto complainant, the 1[st] respondent herein, the first accused with a knife stabbed on the back of the chest and when the 1[st] accused tried to stab on chest, the de facto
Crl.M.C.No.735 of 2013
:-2-:
complainant evaded the same with his left hand, which resulted in injury. Then the other accused with their hands and legs hit on the stomach and all over the body. Now the case of the petitioner is that the dispute between the petitioner, who is the 3[rd] accused and the de facto complainant, is settled out of court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Annexure-A3 submitted that the petitioner has been selected for the post of Constables (GD) in CPO, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and accordingly the matter is settled between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant also submitted that the de facto complainant has also no objection in dropping the proceedings against the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences involved are including 308 of IPC and therefore the dropping of proceedings against the petitioner is likely to affect the prosecution against the remaining accused.
Crl.M.C.No.735 of 2013
:-3-:
4. I have carefully considered the submissions. On going by Annexure-II charge, it appears that the overt act alleged against the petitioner is only hit with hand on the de facto complainant. As per the allegation he has not used any deadly weapon against the de facto complainant and the de facto complainant has no grievance or objection in dropping the proceedings against the petitioner, who is the 3[rd] accused in the above petition. Annexure-A4 is the affidavit sworn into by the de facto complainant.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 1[st] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, during the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties 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.
7. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent
## Crl.M.C.No.735 of 2013
:-4-:
submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he has no grievance against him.
8. 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.
9. 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, 324 & 308 read with Section 34 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
Crl.M.C.No.735 of 2013
:-5-:
1[st] respondent, it appears to me that the injured/the victim/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 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.735 of 2013
:-6-:
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.735 of 2013
:-7-:
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-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner/3[rd] accused in S.C.No.567 of 2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal.
Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE**
skj
True copy
P.A. to Judge
