Prajeesh.K.V. and Maneesh v. The State of Kerala and Safir M.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/20TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2297 of 2013 ()** **------------------------------------CRIME NO. 150/2012 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD. ......** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:** **--------------------------------------------------------------** **1. PRAJEESH.K.V., S/O.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 23 YEARS KODOTHVALAPPIL, KAPPANI, KUMMUMKAI BHEEMANADI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. MANEESH, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 21 /12 THAMBURAN VALAPPIL, KAPPANI, KUMMUMKAI BHEEMANADI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI** ## **RESPONDENTS:STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA** - **REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.** **2. SAFIR M., S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 20 YEARS MOULAKARIYATH HOUSE, PERUMBATTA BHEEMANADI VILLAGE KASARGOD DISTRICT -671 313** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SMT.AMBILY (PREMKUMAR)** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2297 of 2013 ()** **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE** **-------------------------------------** ## **ANNX.1 - CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGFE IN CRIME NO.150/2012 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION.** ## **ANNX.II - AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2297 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 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 and 2 in C.C.No.505 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 150/2012 of Chittarrikkal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341,323,324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure I Charge and all further proceeding in C.C.No.505 of 2012 on the file of the JFCM-II, Hosdurg as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 16.4.2012 at 10.45 hours while the de facto complainant was travelling in his car and when he reached at Kummumkai in Bhemnadi village, due to Crl.M.C.No.2297 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** political enmity, accused Nos.1 to 3 restrained the de facto complainant and dragged him out of the car. It is alleged that the first petitioner beat him with an iron rod and others with hand and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second 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 second 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 further against the petitioners and he has no Crl.M.C.No.2297 of 2013 :-3-: 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 Sections 341,323,324 read with Section 34 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 Crl.M.C.No.2297 of 2013 :-4-: 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 v. decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh 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 predominatingly 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_ Crl.M.C.No.2297 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........”_ 8. 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 net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decision cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. Crl.M.C.No.2297 of 2013 :-6-: In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure -I charge and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.505/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ Crl.M.C.No.2297 of 2013 :-7-: