Omanakkuttan v. State of Kerala and Rajesh

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/6TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1624 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 180/2010 OF KURATHIKAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DIST. C.C. NO.291/2010 & LP. NO.14/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA.** **......** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------** **OMANAKKUTTAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPAN, MUTTATHUVILAYIL, BHARANICKAVU SOUTH, KATTANAM-690 503, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** ## **2. RAJESH, AGED 35 YEARS,** **S/O. SADASIVAN, RAJESH BHAVANAM, KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM-690 501.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S. HYMA. R2 BY ADV. SRI. K.H SAKIR.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1624 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE A1:- CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 180/2010 DATED 30/06/2010 OF KURATHIKKAD POLICE STATION BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA.** **ANNEXURE A2:- AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 11/03/2014.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.1624 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 27[th] day of March, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This is a petition filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.291/2010 now pending as L.P.No.14/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara to quash the proceedings on account of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.180/2010 of Kurathikad police station which was registered on the basis of a statement given by the second respondent alleging the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.291/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara and later it was transferred to register of long pending cases and pending as L.P.No.14/2012 before that court. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and the defacto complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well in view of the settlement. The Crl.M.C.No.1624 of 2014 2 petitioner has no other option except to approach this Court seeking the following relief: Therefore it is humbly prayed that for these and other reasons to be urged at the time of hearing, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourale Court may be pleased to pass an order to quash Annexure-A1 charge sheet in Crime No.180/2010 of Kurathikad police station in C.C.No.291/2010 and L.P.No.14/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikara. 3. The second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and he has no objection in allowing the application. He has filed Annexure A2 affidavit stating these facts. 4. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. So he prayed for allowing the application. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this Court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioner. But he was a police personnel and no departmental action has been taken against the petitioner, but 3 Crl.M.C.No.1624 of 2014 opposed the application. 6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent/defacto complainant a crime was registered as CrimeNo.180/2010 of Kurathikad police station against the petitioner alleging the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, Annexure A1 final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.291/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara. The petitioner did not appear during the course of proceedings and the case was transferred to register of long pending cases and it is now pending as L.P.No.14/2012 of that court. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The defacto complainant has no complaint against the petitioner now and he does not want to prosecute the petitioner as well. Further, it is seen from the allegations in the final report itself that the incident happened in a toddy shop when toddy was not given to the petitioner on credit. However, the matter has been now settled between the parties. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well. It is true that the person working in the police department should not have involved in such cases. But, now 4 Crl.M.C.No.1624 of 2014 he is repenting for what he had done and that was forgiven by the defacto complainant as well. ## 7. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State** **of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “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 mercantile, 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or 5 Crl.M.C.No.1624 of 2014 continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8. In view of the dictum laid down above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioner has repented for what he has done and the second respondent/defacto complainant prepared to forgive the petitioner for his act, which happened in the toddy shop and no purpose will be served by proceedings with this case as this Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to save the time of court. 9. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in L.P.No.14/2012 (Crime No.180/2010 of Kurathikad police station and C.C.No.291/2010)now pending before the Judicial Crl.M.C.No.1624 of 2014 6 First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikara is quashed as against the petitioner. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for further necessary action in this regard. **Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge