Premlal, Vishnu, Vinayak @ Binu and Vaishak v. State of Kerala, Reji @ Varghese and Siji K. Shaji

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013/30TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 929 of 2013 ()** **-----------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 542/2011 of FAST TRACK-II (ADHOC), ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO.231/2010 OF VEEYAPURAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA** **----------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:** **-------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. PREMLAL, AGED 31 YEARS,** - **S/O.LALI MATHEW, KAITHAPARAMBU VEETTIL, VEZHAPARA MURI, RAMANKERY, ALAPPUZHA.** **2. VISHNU, AGED 24 YEARS,** - **S/O.PADMANABHAN, KALLIKKATTU VEETTIL, THIRUVANDOOR PANCHAYATH, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA.** **3. VINAYAK @ BINU, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, THONDUCHIRA VEETTIL, PODIPPARAYIL MURI, PAYIPPAD VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY.** **4. VAISHAK, AGED 26 YEARS,** - **S/O.PADMANABHAN, KALLIKKATTU VEETTIL, THIRUVANDOOR PANCHAYATH, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL** ## **COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682031.** **2. REJI @ VARGHESE, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, PLAVILAYIL VEETTIL, VELLAMKULANGARA, VEEYAPURAM, PIN-690514.** **3. SIJI.K.SHAJI, D/O.SHAJI, PLAVILAYIL VEETTIL, VELLAMKULANGARA, VEEYAPURAM, PIN-690514.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE R2-3 BY ADVS. SRI.BINNY.A.THOMAS** ## **SRI.S.R.SREEJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 929 of 2013 () -----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE** **ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.** **ANNEXURE 2 (SERIES): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 & 3.** **RESPONDENTS ANNEXURE** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.929 of 2013 -----------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of August, 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 to 4 in S.C.No.542 of 2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court-II (ADHOC), Alappuzha which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.231 of 2010 of Veeyapuram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452, 341, 323, 308 & 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in Annexure-1 Final Report in Crime No.231 of 2010 of Veeyapuram Police Station which is now pending as S.C.No.542 of 2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court-II (ADHOC), Alappuzha as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 29/10/2010 at 1 p.m. the petitioners trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and tried to take away his brother's daughter and her child. When he tried to stop the same he was beaten by Crl.M.C.No.929 of 2013 :-2-: the petitioners. Thus, they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452, 341, 323, 308 & 149 of IPC. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled amicably with the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant and the third respondent, who is the injured. Accordingly, respondents 2 and 3 have sworn into Annexure-2 affidavits. Now the spouses are resided together. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. 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 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 respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto Crl.M.C.No.929 of 2013 :-3-: complainant and the injured do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have 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-2 affidavits. 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 143, 147, 452, 341, 323, 308 & 149 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 respondents, it appears to me that the injured and the de facto Crl.M.C.No.929 of 2013 :-4-: complainant have 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.929 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.929 of 2013 :-6-: 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-1 Final Report in Crime No.231 of 2010 of Veeyapuram Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.542 of 2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court-II (ADHOC), Alappuzha. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge