P.P.UMMERKUTTY v. STATE OF KERALA and V.P.BALAKRISHNAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/11TH BHADRA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1972 of 2013 (C) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.597/2011 of J.M.F.C.-I, KANNUR PETITIONER: ------------ P.P.UMMERKUTTY, S/O.C.N.ABU, RAHATH MANZIL, NEAR SANGEETHA TALKIES, PAYYANAMBALAM, KANNUR, KERALA-670001. BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS SRI.S.AJITH (PALAKKAD) SRI.AJITH KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. V.P.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT NARAYANI BHAVAN, P.O.KAKKAD, KANNUR-670005. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.1972 of 2013 (C) --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A-I TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.IN CRIME NO.32/2011 AT KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A-II TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME No.32/2011. ANNEXURE A-III AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.02.2013 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. ---------------------- True copy P.A. to Judge ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.1972 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 02[nd] day of September, 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.597 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.32 of 2011 of Kannur Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506(i) & 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A1 F.I.R., Annexure-AII Final Report in Crime No.32 of 2011 of Kannur Town Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.597 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, on 29/07/2010, he along with others, had attacked the 2[nd] respondent herein who was working as a security staff at Metro Hyper Market on Fort Road, Kannur, and beaten him on Crl.M.C.No.1972 of 2013 :-2-: his face and chest, apart from threatening to kill him and thus according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 & 506(i) read with Section 34 of IPC. It is the further case of the petitioner that, while the above case was pending the entire dispute is settled with the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent who has sworn into Annexure A-III affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] 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 dispute is settled amicably between the parties 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 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto Crl.M.C.No.1972 of 2013 :-3-: 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 A-III affidavit. 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 341, 323, 324, 506(i) & 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 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 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/ accused in the Crl.M.C.No.1972 of 2013 :-4-: 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:- “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 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 Crl.M.C.No.1972 of 2013 :-5-: 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 the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following Crl.M.C.No.1972 of 2013 :-6-: 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 A-I F.I.R., Annexure A-II Final Report in Crime No.32 of 2011 of Kannur Town Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.597 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj