Megha Raghavan and others v. State of Kerala and Visanth P. Nair

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2013/4TH SRAVANA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 3128 of 2013 CC 2212/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.I, THRISSUR CRIME NO. 902/2012 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, TRISSUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1-4: ## 1. MEGHA RAGHAVAN D/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 28 YEARS, VAYAKKOL HOUSE, KANHIRATHARA, CHIRAKKAL P.O., CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, PUZHATHI DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT-670011. 2. LIBINDAS, S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 24 YEARS, ATHILATT HOUSE, KUNHIRATHARA CHIRAKKAL P.O., CHIRAKKAL AMSOM PUZHATHI DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT-670011. 3. SREEJITH S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 37 YEARS, KAMBRATH HOUSE, KANHIRATHARA CHIRAKKAL P.O., CHIRAKKAL AMSOM PUZHATHI DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT-670011. 4. NISHA - W/O.SREEJITH K.V.,AGED 33 YEARS, KAMBRATH HOUSE, - KANHIRATHARA CHIRAKKAL P.O., CHIRAKKAL AMSOM PUZHATHI DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT-670011. BY ADV. SRI.C.SREEJITH (ELAMAKKARA) RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ## 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. ## 2. VISANTH P.NAIR S/O.DR.A.PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 33 YEARS, ATHILAT HOUSE NETAJI HOUSING COLONY, TRICHAMBARAM, TALIPARAMBA P.O. TALIPARAMBA VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT-670141. R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-072013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRMC 3128/2013 ## PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION statement IN CRIME NO., 902/2012 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO. 2212/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRT CLASS MAGISTRIATE COURT NO.I, THRISSUR. ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 3128 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 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 petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No. 2212/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur which is a case instituted upon the police report for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 294(b), 506(ii), 427 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure A2 charge sheet in C.C.No. 2212/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur in Crime No.902/2012 of Thrissur East Police Station, Thrissur District as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the defacto complainant is the husband of the 1[st] petitioner, that the other petitioners are relative of petitioner No.1 and that on 10/5/2012 at 7 a.m., the petitioners trespassed into the flat of the defacto complainant at Thrissur and assaulted him and committed mischiefs. Thus, according to the prosecution, allegation is that the accused who are 4 in numbers committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 294(b), 2 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 3128 of 2013** 506(ii), 427 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., and thus Crime No.902/2012 was registered in the Thrissur Police Station. According to the petitioners subsequently the disputes between the petitioners and the defacto complainant who is the second respondent herein settled the matter as per joint petition which is filed in the above Crl.M.C as Crl.M.A.No.5948/2013,which is signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and counter signed by the respective counsels. The second respondent has also sworn into an affidavit dated 15/7/2013 acknowledging the above facts. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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 continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the **Crl.M.C.No. 3128 of 2013** 3 respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and he has no grievance against them. 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 Sections 448, 341, 323, 294(b), 506(ii), 427 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., 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 second respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners accused in the light of the settlement arrived by **Crl.M.C.No. 3128 of 2013** 4 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 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_ **Crl.M.C.No. 3128 of 2013** 5 _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. 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 3128 of 2013** 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 Annexure-A2 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 2212/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur and all further proceedings thereto. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS