MammiKutty v. Shaliha and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/7TH ASWINA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 5099 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC 965/2014 of J.M.F.C.-I, PALAKKAD CRIME NO. 804/2013 OF KOTTAYI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD -------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :-** **-------------------------** **MAMMIKUTTY AGED 48 YEARS S/O.YOOSAF, KALATHIL HOUSE, KANNANUR PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)** **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/ AND STATE :-** **------------------------------------------------** **1. SHALIHA, AGED 45 YEARS W/O. MAMMIKUTTY, KALATHIL HOUSE, KANNANUR PALAKKAD - 678 501.** **2. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH K.SASI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **jvt** **Crl.MC.No. 5099 of 2014 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :-** **----------------------------** **ANNEXURE A - PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 804/13 OF KOTTAYI POLICE STATION IN PALAKKAD DISTRICT IN CC NO. 965/14 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE NO.I, PALAKKAD.** **ANNEXURE B - AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL** **-------------------------------** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5099 of 2014 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of September, 2014** ## **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 C.C.No.965 of 2014 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate No.1, Palakkad, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.804 of 2013 of Kottayi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections.279 and 338 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings against the petitioner in the above case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 9.11.2013 at about 2.30 pm, the accused driven his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby injured the de- Crl.M.C.No.5099 of 2014 -: 2 :- facto complainant and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the first 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 out of court. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is an abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent, submitted that the above respondent, who is the injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and she has no grievance against him. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the Crl.M.C.No.5099 of 2014 -: 3 :- 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 at 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 279 and 338 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 matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the first respondent, it appears to me that the injured has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it Crl.M.C.No.5099 of 2014 -: 4 :- 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.5099 of 2014 -: 5 :- 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. 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 Crl.M.C.No.5099 of 2014 -: 6 :- for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure - A final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.965 of 2014 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate No.1, Palakkad and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE.** jvt