Milton @ Bavi, Sakkaria Simon and Ajayakrishnan v. State of Kerala and John Francis

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/21ST CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2029 of 2014 (G)** **--------------------------------------[C.C. 2103/2010 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOLLAM, CRIME NO. 391/2010 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT]** **.............** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. MILTON @ BAVI, (A.1), AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KADAPPURATH VEEDU, SAKTHIKULANGARA CHERI, SAKTHIKULNAGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. SAKKARIA SIMON,(A2) AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SIMON PIOS, SAKKARIA VILLA, SAKTHIKULANGARA CHERI, SAKTHIKULNAGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **3. AJAYAKRISHNAN,(A3) AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, `DEVIKA', THIRUMULLAVAARAM CHERI, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR, SRI.S.NAVAS.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. JOHN FRANCIS, AGED 27 YEARS,** - **S/O.FRANCIS JOHN, DINUE DALE (FROM VETTEAZHATHU PUTHUVEL HOUSE), NEAR MARIYALAYAM WORK SHOP, SAKTHIKULANGARA CHERI, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691 018.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.2029/2014-G:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE-A: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.391/2010 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE-B: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN CRIME NO.391/2010 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.2029 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 11[th] day of April, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.2103 of 2010 (Crime No.391/2010 of Sakthikulangara police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam for quashing the proceedings in view of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.2103/2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. The case was originated on the basis of a statement given by the second respondent as defacto complainant in Crime No.391/2010 of Sakthikulangara Police station alleging offences under Sections 341, 324, 506 (1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Annexure-B final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.2103/2010 and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. In the meantime, Crl.M.C.No.2029 of 2014 2 the matter has been settled between the parties. The petitioners and the defacto complainant were friends. The incident happened due to some misunderstanding between them and the entire dispute has been resolved in the mediation held due to intervention of well wishers of both the parties. On account of the settlement, the defacto complainant does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioners and there is no possibility of any conviction also on account of the same. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they could not file application for compounding before the court below. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief: For these reasons, that may be allowed to be urged at the time of hearing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be quash Annexure-B Final report/charge sheet in Crime No.391/2010 of Sakthikulangara Police Station as it is an abuse of process of court and all subsequent proceedings pursuant to C.C.2103/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam and pass such other order, as is deemed fit, secure the ends of 3 Crl.M.C.No.2029 of 2014 justice in this case. 3. The counsel for the second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and on account of the settlement, the second respondent does not want to prosecute the petitioners. He had filed an affidavit stating these facts. 4. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case. So, he prayed for allowing the application. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this Court, submitted that there is no other case pending against the petitioners and there is no criminal antecedents but opposed the application. 6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as defacto complainant Annexure-A First Information Report was registered as Crime No.391/2010 of Sakthikulangara police station against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 341, 324 and 506 (i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation Annexure-B final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.2103/2010 and it is before the Judicial First 4 Crl.M.C.No.2029 of 2014 Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. 7. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The petitioners as well as the second respondent are friends and due to intervention of well wishers of both the parties, the matter has been settled and the relationship has been restored. On account of the settlement, original relationship between them has been restored and the defacto complainant does not want to prosecute the case. Further, on account of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction also, if the case is allowed to proceed with. 8. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly 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 5 Crl.M.C.No.2029 of 2014 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 also and considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and no public interest is involved and as it is not a case of offence affecting the society at large and in view of the settlement, the original relationship has been Crl.M.C.No.2029 of 2014 6 restored between the parties and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as conviction will be remote and it will be wastage of judicial time, this Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement and restoration of relationship between the parties and the pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same. 10. So, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.2103/2010 (Crime No.391/2010 of Sakthikulangara police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately. ## **Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.2029 of 2014 7