R. Rajan Nair v. State of Kerala and Jayesh @ Jayakrishnan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/13TH PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1344 of 2014 ()** ## **--------------------------CRIME NO. 1142/2013 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-** **-----------------------------------------** **R. RAJAN NAIR, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI, INDHIRA NIVAS, JANA SAKTHI ROAD, VELLOORKUNNAM P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.A.V.JAMES** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:-** **------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IN CRIME NO.1142/2013 THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **2. JAYESH @ JAYAKRISHNAN,AGED 34 YEARS,** - **S/O.LATE MOHANAN, RESIDING AT KANDOTH HOUSE, JANASHAKTHI ROAD, VELLOORKUNNAM POST, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.O.S.JAFARKHAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 1344 of 2014 () --------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **----------------------------------------------** **ANNEX A1. TRUE COPY OF THE THE FIR DATED 30.06.2013 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEX A2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 05.11.2013 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEX A3. THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1344 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of March, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the sole accused in Crime No.1142/2013 of Muvattupuzha Police Station to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the defactocomplainant is the uncle of the petitioner and due to some difference of opinion between them, in respect of a civil matter, there was some altercation occurred, which resulted in the incident. On the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent, the uncle of the petitioner, crime No.1142/2013 of Muvattupuzha Police Station was registered, alleging offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Subsequently, the dispute 2 Crl. M.C. No.1344 of 2014 between them has been settled and the family relation ship has been restored and the 2[nd] respondent does not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioner. After the investigation, Annexure-A2 final report has been filed and it is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha, as C.P.No.31/2013. Since the matter has been settled between the parties, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case. Since it is a non-compoundable offence, it is not possible to compound the case before the trial court. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the Annexure-A2 Final Report registered by the Muvattupuzha Police in Crime No,1142/2013.” 3. 2[nd] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the petitioner is the uncle of the defacto-complainant and the matter has been settled and he has no grievance against the petitioner and he had field an Crl. M.C. No.1344 of 2014 3 affidavit supporting the above contentions. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that, except this case, there is no other case against the petitioner and he has no other criminal antecedent and the parties are relatives, but opposed the application on the ground that, it is a grave offence that has been committed. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there is no possibility of any conviction being entered into against the petitioner and it is only a wastage of judicial time to keep the case on file. So he prayed for allowing the application. 6. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent, Annexure-A1 crime was registered, as Crime No.1142/2013 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, against the petitioner, alleging offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code and after Crl. M.C. No.1344 of 2014 4 investigation, Annexure-A2 final report was filed, which was taken on file by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha, as C.P.No.31/2013. It is also seen from the averments in the documents produced itself that, the petitioner is the uncle of the defacto-complaint and due to some civil disputes between them, an incident occurred, in which the defacto-complainant sustained injuries. It is true that a dangerous weapon like chopper was used, but the nature of injury sustained by the 2[nd] respondent is not that grave. The matter has been settled between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent due to the intervention of the family members and all disputes between them have been settled and cordial relationship in the family has been restored. 7. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v.** ## **State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)]** , is stated that: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the Crl. M.C. No.1344 of 2014 5 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case an no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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 mercantile, 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question (s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8. It is true that, normally, this court is not expected to invoke the power under Section 482 of the 6 Crl. M.C. No.1344 of 2014 'Code', to quash the proceedings, involving grave offences and also having public interest. But in this case, though Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code has been incorporated, the dispute is between relatives and that has been settled between them. It cannot be said that, it is having any public interest as such, because even as per the allegations, the incident itself has started on the basis of a civil dispute between the parties, which resulted in the unfortunate incident. Considering the fact that, the matter has been settled between the parties, there is remote possibility of conviction in this case, as the defactocomplainant and the witnesses are not likely to support the case of the prosecution due to the intervention of mediators and family members, the relationship between the uncle and nephew has been restored and they are living in harmony now. So in view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact the matter has been settled and there is no possibility of any conviction Crl. M.C. No.1344 of 2014 7 being entered, if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it will only be a wastage of judicial time, this court feels that, it is a fit case to invoke the power under Section 482 of the 'Code', to quash the proceedings in order to promote the harmony that has been restored in the family, on account of the settlement arrived at between the parties, due to the intervention of family members and well-wishers. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.P.No.31/2013 (Crime No.1142/2013 of Muvattupuzha Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha, against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for necessary further action. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss