Narayanan Kutty v. State of Kerala & ShafeeK

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/21ST SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3329 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO. 353/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT FOR TRIAL OF FOREST OFFENCES, NEDUMANGADU --------------------** ## **PETITIONER / ACCUSED :** **--------------------------------------** **NARAYANAN KUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR 63, SARASWATHI VILASOM PERINGAMMALA, NEDUMANGAD THIRUVANANDAPURAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITH KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT :** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.** **2. SHAFEEK, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADAR, 47 OZHUKUPARA, 5, PERINGAMMALA NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAFEEK V.K. R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.PRADEEP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3329 of 2013 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 846/11 OF PALODE POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 846/11 OF PALODE POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE C ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE CW1 (2ND RESPONDENT)** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3329 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 12[th] day of August, 2013 ## **O R D E R** 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 an accused in C.C.No.353/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangadu which is a case instituted upon the police report for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash all proceeding in C.C.No.353 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court for trial of Forest offences, Nedumangadu as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The sum and substance of the allegation of the prosecution is that on 16/11/2011 at 3.30 p.m., the petitioner/accused trespassed in the shop room of the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant due to the enmity of plastering the southern side of the defacto complainant's shop room and also due to the demand of the defacto complainant to the petitioner/accused to shift the septic tank constructed by the accused in front of the shop rooms of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant **Crl.M.C.No.3329 of 2013** 2 further alleged that, due to the dismantling of plastering in the southern side of defacto complainant's shop room by the accused caused a loss of Rs.15,000/- to the defacto complainant. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled between himself and the second respondent, who is the defacto complainant. The second respondent, defacto complainant had sworn into Annexure-C affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. I have also heard 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 second respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the **Crl.M.C.No.3329 of 2013** 3 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. 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 341, 294(b) 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 de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this **Crl.M.C.No.3329 of 2013** 4 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 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_ **Crl.M.C.No.3329 of 2013** 5 _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. 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.3329 of 2013** 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 all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 353/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangadu and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS