Mahesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar v. The State of Kerala and Omanakuttan

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2014/6TH JYAISHTA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 2455 of 2014** **---------------------------------[C.C.NO.665/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS - MAGISTRATE COURT – I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISED FROM CRIME NO.649/2012 OF SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION]** **.........** ## **PETITIONERS/A1 & A2:** **--------------------------------** ## **1. MAHESH KUMAR,** **S/O. MOHANAN,AGED 25 YEARS, MANJUSHA BHAVAN, RANDAMCHIRA, CHELLAMANGALAM WARD, ULIYAZHATHURA VILLAGE, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. MANOJ KUMAR, S/O. MOHANAN, AGED 29 YEARS, MANJUSHA BHAVAN, RANDAMCHIRA, CHELLAMANGALAM WARD, ULIYAZHATHURA VILLAGE, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.THOSHIN.V.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, TROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION.** ## **2. OMANAKUTTAN, AGED 40,** **S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, PULLAYIL VEEDU, C.R.P NAGAR, HOUSE NO 35, PANGAPARA, SREEKARYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA, R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.2455/2014 – A:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C NO. 665/12 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL IST CLASS - MAGISTRATE COURT- I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE B: NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** **-----------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2455 of 2014** **------------------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of May, 2014** ## **ORDER** This is an application filed by accused numbers 1 and 2 in C.C No.665/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Thiruvananthapuram to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are arrayed as accused numbers 1 and 2 in C.C No.665/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Thiruvananthapuram which arose on the basis of crime registered as Crime No.649/2012 of Sreekariyam Police Station on the basis of the statement given by second respondent as de facto complainant alleging commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C No.665/2012 and now it is pending Crl.M.C No.2455/2014 2 before Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Thiruvananthapuram. The matter has been settled between the parties. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and allowing the case to proceed will only amount to wastage of judicial time. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they cannot file application for compounding before the concerned court. So they have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief: _i) Quash all further proceedings in Annexure A final report in C.C No.665/2012 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Thiruvananthapuram in the interest of justice._ 3. Second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings and he had filed an affidavit stating these facts. Crl.M.C No.2455/2014 3 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement there is no possibility of conviction and he prayed for allowing the application. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners but opposed the application. 6. Heard both sides. 7. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as de facto complainant, a case was registered as Crime No.649/2012 of Sreekariyam Police Station against the petitioners alleging offences u/s 294(b), 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, Annexure A final report was filed which was taken on file as C.C No.665/2012 and is pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Thiruvananthapuram. Now, the matter has been settled between the parties. Second respondent has filed Crl.M.C No.2455/2014 4 Annexure B affidavit stating that in view of the settlement, he does not want to proceed with the case and they are neighbours and on account of the settlement their old relationship has been restored. So, considering the fact that it is a matter arose due to some dispute between the neighbours which has been settled on account of intervention of mediators, there will not be any possibility of conviction if the case is allowed to proceed with as neither de facto complainant nor the witnesses will support the case. Further there is no public interest involved as well as it is a private dispute between the parties which resulted in the registration of the crime. 8. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v State of Punjab** **(2012(4) KLT 108(SC),** the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: _“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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_ Crl.M.C No.2455/2014 5 _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. 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 case, 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_ Crl.M.C No.2455/2014 6 _to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 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.”_ 9. 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 due to the intervention of mediators and friends and on account of the settlement their old relationship has been restored and possibility of conviction is remote, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement and the restoration of harmony between neighbours. In the result the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C No.665/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Thiruvananthapuram as against the petitioners is Crl.M.C No.2455/2014 7 quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately for necessary further action in the matter. **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** vdv