Murali @ Muraleedharan and others v. Padmini and others (including Aswathi, the Sub Inspector of Ranni Police Station, and 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. 3925 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------------------CC 805/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO. I, RANNI. CRIME NO. 628/2009 OF RANNI POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA** **.........** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:-:** **--------------------------------------** **1. MURALI @ MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.NANU, RESIDING AT NIRAVUKALAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUSERIMALA MURI & RANNI VILLAGE & TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** ## **2. VASUMATHI, AGED 44 YEARS** - **W/O.MURALEEDHARAN, NIRAVUKALAYIL VEETIL, THATTAKKADU PUTHUSERIMALA MURI & RANNI VILLAGE & TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** ## **3. MAYA @ MAYAMOL, AGED 21 YEARS** - **D/O.MURALEEDHARAN, NIRAVUKALAYIL VEETIL, THATTAKKADU PUTHUSERIMALA MURI & RANNI VILLAGE & TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT(ON THE DATE OF OFFENCE A MINOR AGED 17 1/2 YEARS).** ## **4. RENJU, AGED 23 YEARS** - **S/O.RAJENDRAN, NIRAVUKALAYIL VEETIL, THATTAKKADU PUTHUSERIMALA MURI & RANNI VILLAGE & TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.S.JUSTUS** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/SATE:-** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. PADMINI, AGED 645 YEARS** - **D/O.KARTHYANI, OLIKKARA VEETIL, THATTAKKADU PUTHUSERIMALA MURI & RANNI VILLAGE & TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, [CW1-DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT] PIN - 689 672.** ## **2. ASWATHI, AGED 25 YEARS** - **D/O.VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT OLICKAL HOUSE PUTHUSERIMALA MURI & RANNI VILLAGE & TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 672 [CW2]** **tss** ## **CRMC. NO.3925/2013** ## **3. THE SUB INSPECTOR, RANNI POLICE STATION, PIN 689 672.** ## **4. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH R3 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3925 of 2013 ()** **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1. TRUE COPY OF THE ACCUSED COPY IN CRIME NO.628/2009 OF RANNI POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3925 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of September, 2013** ## **ORDER** 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 the accused in C.C.No.805 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ranni which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.628 of 2009 of Ranni Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b) & 506(ii) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-1 F.I.R. in Crime No.628 of 2009 of Ranni Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.805 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ranni as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution case is that the goat of the accused entered into the property of the de facto complainant and on being questioned there was a wordy quarrel on 18/10/2009 Crl.M.C.No.3925 of 2013 :-2-: and after that accused persons had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant for 3 minutes and assaulted her by beating with hand on the chest and back. The 1[st] accused had thrown a stone on the de facto complainant which resulted in fracture on the left vertebra. CW.2 was also attacked by the 4rh accused and 1[st] accused by throwing stone. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused four in number committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b) & 506(ii) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Now the case of the petitioners is that the entire dispute is settled with the first respondent, who is the de facto complainant and the second respondent, who is the injured. According to the petitioners, in view of the settlement arrived, the respondents 1 and 2 have sworn into Annexure-2 affidavits. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 1[st] 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 dispute is Crl.M.C.No.3925 of 2013 :-3-: settled amicably between the parties 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 1[st] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she 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 including Annexure-2 affidavit. 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 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b) & 506(ii) Crl.M.C.No.3925 of 2013 :-4-: read with 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 1[st] 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 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3925 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3925 of 2013 :-6-: 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 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-1 F.I.R. in Crime No.628 of 2009 of Ranni Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.805 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ranni. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj