Nandeep N. Raj v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2013/20TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2847 of 2013** **---------------------------------[AGAINST C.C. NO.279/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS - MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ALUVA]** **..........** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **-------------------------------------** **1. NANDEEP N. RAJ, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. NANDARAJAN V.K., VAZHAKAMADAM, H M T JUNCTION, KALAMASSERY P.O., PIN-683 104.** **2. KANU K.G, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. K.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KOLLIKKATTIL HOUSE, NAD P.O, ALUVA, PIN-683 563.** **3. MARIYA DAS K.V. AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. K.G.VARGHESE, KANIYAMPURAM HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O, PIN-682 504.** **4. JOMON VARGHESE .K, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. S.K.VARGHESE, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, H M T COLONY P.O., PIN-683 503.** **5. JOPHIN JOSE, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH M.S., MANDANATH HOUSE, NEAR R.L.V SCHOOL, TRIPUNITHURA P.O., PIN-682 301.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SASIKUMAR, SRI.R.ROHITH.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** ## **2. SAJAN,** - **S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 29 YEARS, KUTTUNGAL (H), KUTTIKATTU KARA, KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE, PIN-683 102.** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.2847/2013:** ## **3. ASHKAR,** **S/O. ABUBAKAR, AGED 27 YEARS, PALLIAKAL VEEDU, PANAYAMPILLI, THRIKAKARA SOUTH VILLAGE, PIN-682 028.** ## **4. NISHAD,** **S/O. KUNJU MUHAMMED, KADAMBAYIL VEEDU, MULLEPADAM KARA, THRIKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, PIN-682 028.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN, R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAYED MURTHALA THANGAL.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2847 of 2013** **----------------------------------** **APPENDIX ----------------** **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : ------------------------------------------** |**ANNEXURE A1-**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE F I R NO. 1313/2011 DATED 02-07-2011 OF**| |---|---| ||**KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE A2-**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE**| ||**KALAMASSERY POLICE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS**| ||**MAGISTRATE'S COURT II, ALUVA.**| |**ANNEXURE A3-**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A4-**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A5-**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**RESPONDENTS'**|**ANNEXURES: NIL.**| |**--------------------------------------------**|| **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 2847 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 11[th] day of July, 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 accused in C.C.No.279/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 1313/2011 of Kalamassery Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 427 and 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 FIR dated 2/7/2011, registered by Kalamasserry Police and Annexure A2, the charge sheet dated 6/7/2011, pending before th Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva, the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution case allegation is that on 1/7/2011 at 7.20 p.m., the petitioners herein who were the members of Democratic Youth Federation of India and Students Federation of India, being aware of the fact that they were rendering into an unlawful assembly, used force and violence and attacked the respondents 2 to 4 who were members of the Youth Congress and Kerala Students Union and thereby caused injury to them. The incident happened at **Crl.M.C. No. 2847 of 2013** 2 H.M.T Kavala at Kalamasserry and thus it is alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 427 and 149 of IPC. Now, the case of the petitioners are that the matter is settled subsequently with the defacto complainant, second respondent and the injured, respondents 3 and 4. Second respondent, defacto complainant is sworn into affidavit Annexure-A3 and Annexures-4 and 5 affidavit are sworn into respondents 3 and 4, who are injured. 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 respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against them. **Crl.M.C. No. 2847 of 2013** 3 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 143, 147, 323, 427 and 149 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 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 case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- _“57. The position that emerges from the above_ **Crl.M.C. No. 2847 of 2013** 4 _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 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........”_ **Crl.M.C. No. 2847 of 2013** 5 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 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 AnnexuresA1 and A2 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.279/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva and all further proceedings thereto. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS