Nandukrishnan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/21ST JYAISHTA 1935** **CRL.MC.NO. 1788 OF 2012 () --------------------------AGAINST C.C. NO.24 OF 2012 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR CRIME NO.588 OF 2011 OF IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION ------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1:** **----------------------** **NANDUKRISHNAN, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.SOORAPPAN, MEKKATTUKATTIL HOUSE, KARUMATHARA DESOM KARUMATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH** ## **COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------** ## **1. SANTHEESH** - **AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, THARAYIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN.680004.** **2. GIRISHKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN, THAINAKATH HOUSE, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN.680004.** **3. PRAVEEN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.PRAKASAN, PANAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUNGONAM DESOM, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN.680004.** ## **4. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682031.** **R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ.S R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** NS **CRL.MC.NO. 1788 OF 2012 () -------------------------** ## APPENDIX ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :** **ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.588 OF 2011 OF THE IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 24 OF 2012 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY 1[ST] RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,IRINJALAKUDA. ANNEXURE A4: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2[ND] RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. ANNEXURE A5: THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. ANNEXURE A6: THE COMPOUNDING PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **/ TRUE COPY /** **NS** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.1788 of 2012 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of June, 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 petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.24 of 2012 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ramavarmapuram, Thrissur. 2. C.C.No.24 of 2012 is instituted in the Juvenile Justice Board, Ramavarmapuram, Thrissur on the basis of the report filed by the police after investigation in Crime No.588 of 2011 of Irinjalakuda Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 & 326 read with Section 149 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act, 1959. The alleged incident had taken place connected with a temple festival. Now the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. Annexure AV is the affidavit of the first respondent, who is the de facto complainant, which is also signed by respondents 2 and 3, who are the injured. Crl.M.C.No.1788/2012 :-2-: 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 first 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 petitioner and he has no grievance against him. 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-AV affidavit. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the Crl.M.C.No.1788/2012 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 & 326 read with Section 149 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 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 first respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/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:- Crl.M.C.No.1788/2012 :-4-: _“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 predominatingly 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_ Crl.M.C.No.1788/2012 :-5-: _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 net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of Crl.M.C.No.1788/2012 :-6-: 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 A1 F.I.R. and final report pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.24 of 2012 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ramavarmapuram, Thrissur (in Crime No.588 of 2011 of Irinjalakuda Police Station). Sd/- ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. To Judge