Nishanth v. State of Kerala and Mercy @ Sussy and Ancy

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2013/10TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2659 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------SC.NO. 1023/2010 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO. 46/2010 OF VEEYAPURAM POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA** **----------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:** ## **----------------------------------------------** **NISHANTH, AGED 23 YEARS,S/O. KUMARAN, PUTHUVAKERIL HOUSE, AYAPARAMPU P.O., ANARY, ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, VEEYAPURAM POLICE STATION.** **2. MERCY @ SUSSY, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. FRANCIS, KOODARATHIL, PAYIPPAD P.O., HARIPPAD-690 556** **3. ANCY, AGED 21 YEARS,W/O. NISHANTH, PUTHUVAKERI HOUSE, AAYAPARAMBU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 001.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.S.THOSHIN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 2659 of 2013 () --------------------------------------APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------ANNEX 1- COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT. ANNEX 2- COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. ANNEX 3- (SERIES)- AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 & 3. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE** **==> picture [15 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> sts<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2659 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 1st day of July, 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 accused in S.C.No.1023 of 2010 of the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track-II(ADHOC), Alappuzha which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.46 of 2010 of Veeyapuram Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections.366 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings pertaining to 1st accused in Annexure-I final report in Crime No.46 of 2010 of the Veeyapuram police station which is now pending as S.C.No.1023 of 2010 of the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track-II(ADHOC), Alappuzha against the petitioner and all further proceedings thereto as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the daughter of the de facto complainant who was a minor was kidnapped on 22.02.2010 and on the basis of the information furnished in the Veeyapuram police station, Crime No.46 of 2010 was registered for the offences punishable under 2 Crl.M.C.No.2659 of 2013 Sections 366 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, himself and the third respondent who is the daughter of the de facto complainant/the second respondent were in love and as the de facto complainant was originally not in favour of the love affairs she prepared the above complaint. Now the case of the petitioner is that he had married the third respondent on 07.02.2011 with the permission of both the families and now they are residing together. Annexure-2 is the marriage certificate and Annexure-3 series are the affidavit sworn into by the de facto complainant the second respondent and the third respondent who is the victim and as such, the case of the petitioners are that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents two and three. 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 3 Crl.M.C.No.2659 of 2013 process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents two and three who on the basis of specific instruction received from the second respondent submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant/victim/injured do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have 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-2 marriage certificate and Annexure-3(series) are the affidavit filed by the respondents two and three. 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 366 r/w 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 Crl.M.C.No.2659 of 2013 4 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 respondents, it appears to me that the injured/the victim/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 Gian Singh's 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:- 5 Crl.M.C.No.2659 of 2013 “...... _... 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 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 6 Crl.M.C.No.2659 of 2013 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–I final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.1023 of 2010 of the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track-II(ADHOC), Alappuzha and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN Judge** mns/ Crl.M.C.No.2659 of 2013 7