Manikandan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/19TH BHADRA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3915 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------IN SC 328/2013 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, IRINJALAKUDA CRIME NO. 9/2011 OF MALAKKAPARA POLICE STATION, TRISSUR** **----** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** - **------------------** **MANIKANDAN, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.LAKHMANAN, TATA TEA QUARTERS, KADAMATTOM, MALAKAPPARA, THRISSUR** **BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR** **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** - **-----------------------------** **1. PRABHU, S/O.THANKASWAMI, IX/72, TATA TEA QUARTERS KADAMATTOM, MALAKAPPARA, THRISSUR** **2. MARRIYAMMA, W/O.LAKSMANAN, IX/71 TATA TEA QUARTERS, KADAMATTOM MALAKAPPARA, THRISSUR** **3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE** - **MALAKKAPARA POLICE STATION THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN 682031** **4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN 682 031** **5. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA** **R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.S.NIDHEESH** **SRI.M.R.DHANIL** **R3 TO R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3915 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** |**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**|**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**| |---|---| |**----------------------**|| |**ANNEXURE A1:**|**A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION**| ||**REPORT IN CRIME NO 9/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE**| ||**MALAKKAPARA POLICE STATION DATED 16-11-2011**| |**ANNEXURE A2:**|**A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 23-12-2011 RECORDED BY THE**| ||**POLICE**| |**ANNEXURE A3:**|**A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT**| ||**SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS**| ||**MAGISTRATE COURT,CHALAKUDY IN CRIME NO 9/2011**| ||**DATED 16-11-2011**| |**ANNEXURE A4:**|**A PHOTO COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE**| ||**ACCUSED BY ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS**| ||**COURT,IRINJALAKUDA IN S.C NO 328/2013.**| |**ANNEXURE A5:**|**ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE FIRST**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 6-09-2013**| |**RESPONDENT(S)'**|**EXHIBITS :**<br>**NIL.**| |**-----------------------**|| ||**//TRUE COPY//**| ||**P.A. TO JUDGE**| ## **BP** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3915 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of September, 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 petitioner, who is the sole accused in S.C.No.328/2013 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.9/2011 of Malakkapara Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 307 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexures-A1 FIR and A3 final report in S.C.No.328/2013 and to acquit the petitioner, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 16.11.2011 at about 10.45 a.m. connected with a dispute arose between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent, the petitioner attacked the 1[st] respondent and inflicted a cut **Crl.M.C.No.3915 of 2013** 2 injury on his neck with knife. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 447 and 307 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioner is that while the above case is pending, the entire dispute is settled with respondent nos.1 and 2 who are respectively the injured as well as the de facto complainant and the 1[st] respondent/the injured, preferred Annexure-A5 affidavit stating that the entire dispute is settled and he has no objection in compounding the offence or quashing the FIR to continue the sweet relationship between them who are neighbours. 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 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents. 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 to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the **Crl.M.C.No.3915 of 2013** 3 continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondents, who are the injured and the de facto complainant do not intends to proceed any further against the petitioner and they haves no grievance against him. 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, 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 447 and 307 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and **Crl.M.C.No.3915 of 2013** 4 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 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, it appears to me that the injured and the de facto complainant have 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 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.” **Crl.M.C.No.3915 of 2013** 5 ## 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3915 of 2013** 6 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 Annexures-A1 FIR and A3 final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C.No.328/2013 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda [in Crime No.9/2011 of Malakkapara Police Station]. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge