Mahesh and Others v. State of Kerala and LiyaKath A.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/22ND SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3354 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC 1772/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,KASARAGOD** **CRIME NO. 153/2011 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION,KASARGOD** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-:** - **------------------** **1. MAHESH, AGED 21 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT KOLIKUNNIL HOUSE P.O.PANAYAL, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. SUMESH, AGED 21 YEARS** - **S/O.T.KUNHAMBU NAIR, RESIDING AT ARIYAL HOUSE IRIYANNI, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **3. SUNIL GOPI, AGED 21 YEARS S/O.GOPINATHAN K.C., RESIDING AT SADAYAM KATHUNDY THAYANNUR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **4. JISMON, AGED 21 YEARS S/O.JOY GEORGE, RESIDING AT S.P.NAGAR, MUTTATHODY KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **5. RAGESH, AGED 21 YEARS S/O.KRISNAVENI, RESIDING AT PERADKAM HOUSE, IRIYANNI MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **6. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 20 YEARS S/O.MOOSA K.M., RESIDING AT BELLIPADY HOUSE, KOTTOOR MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **7. SREERAJ, AGED 20 YEARS S/O.K.KUNHAMBU NAIR, RESIDING AT KANNATHILPADY P.O. EDNEER, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAIANT AND STATE:-:** **--------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3354 of 2013 ()** **2. LIYAKATH A., AGED 21 YEARS** **S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT PERVAD HOUSE, KUMBALA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 321.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANOOP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** **Crl.MC.No. 3354 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R AND CHARGE IN CRIME NO.153/2011 OF THE VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO.1772/2011 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.07.2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. ----------------------//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JDUGE** ## **BP** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3354 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 12[th] day of August, 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 petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No.1772/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.153/2011 of Vidyanagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, r/w Section 149 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1772/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod (Crime No.153/2011 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragod) as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution case is that on 17/3/2011 at 9.15 a.m., the accused Nos. 1 to 7 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with an intention to commit offence, wrongfully confined the defacto complainant and assaulted him and thus according to the prosecution the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C. Now, the case of the **Crl.M.C.No.3354 of 2013** 2 petitioner is that the matter is settled amicably with the second respondent who is the defacto complainant who had sworn into the Annexure-B affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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 second 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. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, **Crl.M.C.No.3354 of 2013** 3 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 Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, r/w Section 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 matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the second 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 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_ **Crl.M.C.No.3354 of 2013** 4 _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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3354 of 2013** 5 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. Thus, I am of the view that 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. 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 all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.1772/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS