Prasanth v. State of Kerala and T. Preetha and Priyanka

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/5TH BHADRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4891 of 2014** **---------------------------------[S.C.NO.100/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE AND ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA, CRIME NO. 275/2012 OF PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION]** **...........** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------** **PRASANTH, S/O.NARAYANAN,AGED 36, LAKSHMINIVAS HOUSE, PIRAVATHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT C/O.MATHEWS, CHERUVALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM KARA, AIKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KOLENCHERY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.R.VINOD KUMAR.** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. T.PREETHA, D/O.NARAYANAN AND W/O.AJIKUMAR, AGED 45, THEKKUVILA VEEDU,PIRAVATHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. GOPALAN KARTHA, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU KARA, AIKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KADAYIRUPPU.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 331.** **2. PRIYANKA, D/O.AJIKUMAR, AGED 19, THEKKUVILA VEEDU, PIRAVATHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. GOPALAN KARTHA, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU KARA, AIKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KADAYIRUPPU.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 331.** ## **3. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINUCHAND, R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C.NO.4891/2014:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.DATED 19.07.2012. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF R1 DATED 25.08.2014. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF R2 DATED 25.08.2014.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4891 of 2014 ------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of August, 2014.** ## **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 petitioner, who is the accused in S.C.No.100 of 2014 of the Subordinate and Assistant Sessions court, Muvattupuzha, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.275 of 2012 of Puthencuruz Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 308 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash the charge sheet and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner, in the above sessions case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the accused restrained and attacked the respondents with a helmet, due to previous enmity and thereby committed the **Crl.M.C.No.4891 of 2014** 2 offences as alleged by the prosecution. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents. 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 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] and 2[nd] respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the victim and the de facto complainant, do not intends to proceed any further against the petitioner and they have no grievance against him. 6. I have carefully considered the above **Crl.M.C.No.4891 of 2014** 3 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 341, 324 and 308 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] and 2[nd] respondents, it appears to me that the the victim and the de facto complainant have no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light **Crl.M.C.No.4891 of 2014** 4 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.4891 of 2014** 5 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 the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.4891 of 2014** according to me, following the decision 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 the charge sheet/final charge and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner, in S.C.No.100 of 2014 of the Subordinate and Assistant Sessions court, Muvattupuzha. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge