Mathew and Sebastian v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/4TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1691 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 51/2014 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD** ## **----------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 :** **-------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. MATHEW, AGED 38 YEARS** - **S/O.K.M.JOSEPH, KUNNATHETT HOUSE, KOLICHAL (PO) RAJAPURAM (VIA), KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **2. SEBASTIAN, AGED 33 YEARS** - **S/O.K.M.JOSEPH, KUNNATHETT HOUSE, KOLICHAL (PO) RAJAPURAM (VIA), KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.RANJIT BABU** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.** **2. ANTONY N.J. @ TOMY, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, NARIPPARA (H), MANADUKKAM (PO) PANATHADI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671532.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE P. R2 BY ADV. SRI. PRATHEESH P.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Mn** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 1691 of 2014 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : --------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.51/2014 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG. ANNEXURE-2 THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE Mn** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1691 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.51/2014 of Rajapuram Police Station for quashing the proceedings in view of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.51/2014 of Rajapuram Police Station, registered on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent injured as defactocomplainant, alleging offences under Section 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners and defacto-complainant were neighbours. Due to the intervention of mediators and well-wishers the matter has been settled between them. The defacto-complainant 2 Crl. M.C. No.1691 of 2014 does not want to proceed with the investigation or prosecute the petitioners in view of the settlement. No purpose will be served by proceeding the investigation or ultimately the trial of the case, if final report is filed, in view of the settlement. Since, it is in the crime stage, neither the police nor the court will drop the proceedings. So they have no other option, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “In the above circumstances it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.51/2014 of Rajapuram Police Station now pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg in the interest of justice.” 3. 2[nd] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled due to the intervention of mediators and he does not want to proceed with the case. He had also filed an affidavit stating these facts. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by allowing the investigation to continue. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, as Crl. M.C. No.1691 of 2014 3 directed by this court submitted that, except this case, there is no other case against the petitioners, but opposed the application on the ground that, the investigation is in the primitive stage. 5. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent/ defacto-complainant, Rajapuram Police Station has registered Annexure-A1 first information report, as crime No.51/2014 against the petitioners, alleging offences under Section 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. 2[nd] respondent filed Annexure-II affidavit stating that, the matter has been settled and the petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent are neighbours. The settlement has arrived at due to the intervention of mediators and the friendship has been restored on account of the settlement and he does not want to proceed with the investigation or prosecuting the petitioners. 6. It is also seen from the allegations in the first Crl. M.C. No.1691 of 2014 4 information statement itself that, injuries sustained by the defacto-complainant are only minor in nature. Further, it was due to some mis-understanding that the incident had happened. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of the defacto-complaint supporting the investigation and even if ultimately final report is field, the possibility of conviction against he petitioner is remote in view of this fact. 7. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** it has been held that: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case an 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 Crl. M.C. No.1691 of 2014 5 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 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings 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 an 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.” 8. In view of the dictum laid down in the decision cited (supra) and also considering the fact that, it is a dispute between the neighbours regarding drainage water through their properties and that has been now settled between the parties and no purpose will be served in allowing either the investigation or trial of the case to 6 Crl. M.C. No.1691 of 2014 proceed with, as neither the defacto-complaint nor his witnesses will support the case of the prosecution. This court feels that, it is a fit case to invoke the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' to quash the proceedings in order to promote the harmony that has been restored on account of the settlement arrived at between the neighbors. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.51/2014 of Rajapuram Police Station, against the petitioners are quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, namely Judicial First Class magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, to inform the same to the concerned police station for necessary further action in this regard. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss