Mamachan v. State of Kerala and Geevarghese @ Jose

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2013/31ST JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2492 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 744/2013 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT ------------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-** **----------------------------------------** **MAMACHAN, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS,ABIYIL HOUSE, VADAKKE MURI,PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR THALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:-** **------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2. GEEVARGHESE @ JOSE,AGED 37 YEARS,** - **S/O.CHAKKO, PUNNAMOOTTIL VEEDU, VADAKKE MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.** **3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANAD POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.** **R1 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2013,ALONG WITH CRMC.NO.2493 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2492 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **--------------------------------------------** **ANNEX A. TRUE COPY OF F.I.R IN CRIME NO.744/2013 OF SOORANAD POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **ANNEX B. NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos.2492 and 2493 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of June, 2013.** ## **O R D E R** As the parties, in the above two M.Cs. filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., are one and the same and the facts and circumstances of the cases are identical and especially the above M.Cs. are filed against the case and counter in Crime Nos.744/13 and 745/13 of Sooranadu police station, at the instance of the petitioner/accused in each case, are heard together and being disposed by this common order. 2. Crime No.744/13 is registered at the instance of one Geevarghese, the de facto complainant who is the accused in Crime No.744/13 of the same police station. In Crime No.744/13, the offences alleged against are under sections 324 and 326 of IPC. Whereas, the offences alleged in Crime No.745/13 are under sections 341 and 323 of IPC, in which the de facto complainant is the accused in 2 ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.2492 and 2493 of 2013** Crime No.744/13. The place of occurrence in both the cases is one and the same, ie., at Punnamoodu junction in Poruvazhi village in Sasthamcotta, and near to the house of both the de facto complainants in the above two cases. Now the case of the petitioner in both the cases are that they have settled the matter mutually through an amicable settlement. In Crl.M.C.No.2492/13, the de facto complainant is the 2[nd] respondent herein and his notarized affidavit is filed as Annexure B, whereas in Crl.M.C.No.2493/13, the de facto complainant is the 2[nd] respondent herein, who has also preferred a notarized affidavit as Annexure B. 3. The allegation in Crl.M.C.No.2492 of 2013 is that on 11.5.2013 at 5 p.m., the petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant striking him with a splinter of wood and causing him fracture of ulna of the right hand and he threw a brick piece at de facto complainant which hit him on his right leg causing injury to one of the fingers. Whereas, the allegation in Crl.M.C.No.2493 of 2013 is that, on 11.6.2012 at 6.15 p.m. the petitioner assaulted 3 ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.2492 and 2493 of 2013** the de facto complainant with hands, on his left cheek causing pain and twisted his hand thereby causing abrasion and pain. Now, the case of the petitioner in each case is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in each case as well as the 2[nd] respondent in each case. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in each case has submitted that during the pendency of the above crimes, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crimes. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crimes is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent in each case, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant in each case, does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner in each case and the 2[nd] respondent in each 4 ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.2492 and 2493 of 2013** case has no grievance against the petitioner in each case. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petitions. 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 petitions. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the cases, it can be seen that the offences involved in Crime No.744/13, are only under sections 324 and 326 of IPC, whereas, the offences alleged in Crime No.745/13 are under sections 341 and 323 of IPC, 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 matters. From the submission made by the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent in each case, it appears to me that the 5 ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.2492 and 2493 of 2013** de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner in each case 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 6 **Crl.M.C.Nos.2492 and 2493 of 2013** 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 above cases and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the above cases, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in these cases. 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 7 ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.2492 and 2493 of 2013** court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, these Criminal M.Cs. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are allowed, quashing Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.744/13 of Sooranad police station and Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.745/13 of Sooranad police station and all further proceedings on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate court, Sasthamcotta. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge