Pramod & Joshy v. State of Kerala and Akhil Omanakuttan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2013/21ST ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2157 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** **CRIME NO. 544/2013 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2:** **----------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. PRAMOD AGED 35 YEARS** **S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KAIPPATTA THEKKETHIL VEEDU KAIPPATTA, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** ## **2. JOSHY AGED 30 YEARS** **S/O. CHACKO, UTHIYAKUNNATHU HOUSE, MANKUZHIPADI MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. AKHIL OMANAKUTTAN, AGED 26 YEARS** **S/O. OMANAKUTTAN NAIR, KRISHNA KRIPA HOUSE NEDUNGADAPALLY.P.O., KUNNANTHANAM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-686545.** **R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R BY SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 2157 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANX.A : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT & F.I. STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 544/2013 OF KEEZHAVAIPUR POLICE STATION.** **ANX.B THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE HIS ADVOCATE AT THIRUVALLA.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **---------------------------------------** **\\ TRUE COPY \\** **PA TO JUDGE** **jm/** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2157 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of July, 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 petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.544 of 2013 of Keezhvaipur Police Station which is a case instituted upon a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 308, 506(ii) & 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all the proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.544 of 2013 of Keezhvaipur Police Station as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation against the accused in the above case is that, on 18/5/2013 at about 8 p.m., due to previous enmity, accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention caused bodily injury on the de facto complainant and assaulted him by using their fist at Mallappally Town and inflicted injuries on his body and it is also alleged that the first accused brandished a sword against the de facto complainant with the Crl.M.C.No.2157 of 2013 :-2-: knowledge of consequences that the injuries which may be inflicted may cause his death. Thus, according to the de facto complainant, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 308, 506(ii) & 34 of IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that subsequently the police filed a report dated 20/05/2013 by which Section 308 of IPC is deleted. Now the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court since they are neighbours. Annexure-B is the affidavit sworn into by the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the above crime, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. Crl.M.C.No.2157 of 2013 :-3-: 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 complainant does not intend to proceed any 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 including Annexure-B 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 294(b), 341, 323, 308, 506(ii) & 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 Crl.M.C.No.2157 of 2013 :-4-: 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 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2157 of 2013 :-5-: 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 Crl.M.C.No.2157 of 2013 :-6-: 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 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 in Crime No.544 of 2013 of Keezhvaipur Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge