: null

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/A4TH BH** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3571 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** **(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.425/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM)** **(CRIME NO. 37/2005 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM)** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1-9:** - **---------------------------** **1. P.VASUDEVAN, AGED 37 YEARS** - **S/O. PARAMESWARAN, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, NADAMA VILLAGE THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **2. RON BASTAIN, AGED 29 YEARS** - **S/O. SEBASTIAN PAUL, MONJAPPILLI HOUSE, PULLEPADY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **3. SANDEEP, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, VENNALA DESAM, EDAPPILLY VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **4. RAJESH KUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. RAJENDRAN, SUNNY HOUSE, PERIYANKADA VILLAGE NEDUMANGAD THALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **5. BIJU, AGED 34 YEARS S/O. KARUNAKARAN, ERUCHIRARODARIKATHU VEEDU ARYANADU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU THALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **6. DEERAJ, AGED 33 YEARS** - **S/O. SUKUMARAN, AVANIPPILLY HOUSE, KODUNGALLOOR DESOM LOKAMAHESWARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **7. ISMAIL, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED NASAR, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, MUTTAM DESAM ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **8. SANDYA, AGED 31 YEARS D/O. VASU, KAROTHKUNNU HOUSE, MUPPATHADAM DESOM ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **9. SHAINY AGED 32 YEARS** - **D/O. BABU, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, VALAPPU DESOM ELAKUNNAPPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.T.V.ANITHA** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** - **-------------------------** **1. LESLI PALLATH, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH PALLATH, PALLATH HOUSE, PERUMANOOR KARA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3571 of 2013 ()** **2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.DILEEP R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **MNS** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3571 of 2013 ()** **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **-----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.37/2005 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEXURE II- TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC N O.425/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEXURE III- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:NIL** **-------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3571 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 26[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 petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 9 in C.C.No.425/05 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.37/05 of Central Police Station Ernakulam] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 342, 188 r/w 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-II charge sheet as against the petitioners in the above calendar case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioners trespassed into the college campus and conducted a procession in connection with the state wide **Crl.M.C.No.3571 of 2013** 2 agitation in front of the office of the de facto complainant who is the principal of the St.Alberts College, Ernakulam, and thereby the accused have committed the offence and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court with the 1[st] respondent/de facto complainant, who sworn into Annexure-III affidavit. 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 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3571 of 2013** 3 further against the petitioners and he 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. 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 under Sections 143, 147, 448, 342, 188 r/w 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 1[st] respondent, it appears to **Crl.M.C.No.3571 of 2013** 4 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 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:- “......... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the **Crl.M.C.No.3571 of 2013** 5 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 of the accused, rather 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.3571 of 2013** 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 - II charge sheet and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.425/05 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam [in Crime No.37/05 of Central Police Station Ernakulam]. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge