Midhun T.K. v. State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam, and Mohanan K.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2014/11TH CHAITHRA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 1838 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC 705/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,PAYYANNUR CRIME NO. 282/2013 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR --------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **------------------** **MIDHUN T.K., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN K., THEKKADAVAN VALIYA VEEDU, KELOTH, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS:** **-----------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 2. MOHANAN K., S/O.NARAYANAN, THEKKADAVAN VALIYA VEEDU, KELOTH, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670307. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY SRI.PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1838 of 2014 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.282/2013 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR. ANNEXURE 2 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.282/2013 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR. ANNEXURE 3 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY R2 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT DT. 3-2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **----------------------//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **BP** ## K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1838 of 2014 -----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is field by the sole accused in C.C.No.705/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, in Crime No.282/2013, to quash the proceedings, in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the ‘Code’). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.705/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. It was originated on the basis of a statement given by the 2[nd] respondent, who is none other than the father of the petitioner and Crime No.282/2013 of Payyannur Police Station was registered alleging offences under Section 452, 506(1), 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Annexure-A1 First Information Report was registered. After 2 Crl. M.C. No.1838 of 2014 investigation, Annexure-A2 final report was field and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.705/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The 2[nd] respondent, who is none other than the father of the petitioner, does not want to proceed against him. No purpose will be served by proceeding the case as well, in view of the settlement. Since some of the offences are noncompoundable in nature, the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in Annexure-2 charge and the consequent CC.No.705/2013 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur.” 3. 2[nd] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled and he has no intention to proceed against the petitioner, who is his son and now they are residing together and he has no grievance against his son and he field Annexure-3 affidavit stating all these facts. Crl. M.C. No.1838 of 2014 3 4. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding the case. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, as directed by this court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioner and he has no criminal background and it is a dispute between the father and son, but opposed the application. 6. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent, who is none other than the father of the petitioner, Annexure-1 first information report was registered as crime No.282/2013 of Payyannur Police Station, alleging offences under Section 452, 506(1), 323, 427 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation Annexure-A2 final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.705/2013 and that is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur. It is also mentioned in the petition that, being son and father, the matter has been settled due to the intervention of mediators 4 Crl. M.C. No.1838 of 2014 and family members and they are now living together and the father has no grievance against the son. 7. The 2[nd] respondent also appeared though counsel and supported the settlement and filed Annexure-3 affidavit stating these facts as well. It is also seen from the affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent that, the petitioner is now residing with them and he is looking after them and he has no grievance against his son and the relationship has been restored on account of the settlement and he had understood the mistake as well. 8. 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 Crl. M.C. No.1838 of 2014 5 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 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.” 9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that, it is a dispute between the son and father, which has been settled, due to the intervention of mediators and family members and the relationship has been restored and they are living together harmoniously, after the settlement and there is no 6 Crl. M.C. No.1838 of 2014 possibility of any conviction being entered against the petitioner, in view of the settlement, as the defactocomplainant or his witnesses will not support the case of the prosecution and the possibility of conviction will be remote, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings, especially to promote the settlement, which resulted in the harmony between the father and son and the pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for such relationship. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.705/2013 (Crime No.282/2013 of Payyannur Police Station), pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyanuur, against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately. _Sd/-_ K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss