Raghavan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2014/7TH JYAISHTA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2474 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 134/2014 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT -------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------------** **RAGHAVAN, AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.KIDU NAIK, VATHIL MADI, CHAMMUNDIKUNNU P.O., KASARAGOD.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.RANJIT BABU** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 032.** **2. B.NARYANAN,S/O.KIDU NAIK,AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT YOGESH BHAVAN, VATHIL MADI, CHAMMUNDIKUNNU P.O., PANATHADI GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 532.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI..B.MOHANKUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 2474 of 2014 () --------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: --------------------------------------------ANNEX-1. THE ACCUSED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.134/2014 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG. ANNEX-2. THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.2474 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 28[th] day of May, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the sole accused in Crime No.134/2014 of Rajapuram police station to quash the proceedings on the basis of a settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the accused in Crime No.134/2014 of Rajapuram police station, which was registered on the basis of a statement given by the second respondent/defacto complainant, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner. There was some dispute regarding the property and on account of the same, some incident had happened which resulted in registration of the crime. Now the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the defacto complainant due to intervention of mediators and family members and on account of the settlement, the entire dispute has been resolved and harmony has been brought in the family. In view of the settlement, the second respondent does not want to prosecute his brother, who is the sole accused in 2 Crl.M.C.No.2474 of 2014 the case. No purpose will be served in proceeding with the investigation as well on account of the settlement. Since it is in the crime stage and some of the offences alleged are non compoundable in nature, neither the court nor the police will drop further proceedings. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief: In the above circumstances it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.134/2014 of Rajapuram police station now pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg in the interest of justice. 3. The second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of family members and the family relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent has been restored on account of the same and he does not want to prosecute his brother as well. He filed Annexure 2 affidavit stating these facts. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by allowing the investigation to continue or the trial to be conducted in the 3 Crl.M.C.No.2474 of 2014 case. 5. The Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court submitted that except this case there is no other case and the investigation is in the preliminary stage and considering the offences alleged, she opposed the application. ## 6. Heard both sides. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the second respondent are brothers and there was some property dispute between them. In connection with the same, some incident had happened and on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent, Annexure 1 First information Report was registered against the petitioner as Crime No.134/2014 of Rajapuram police station alleging offences under Sections 447 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Now the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of family members and well wishers of both the parties. It is also alleged in the affidavit filed by the second respondent that on account of the settlement, the relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent has been restored and he does not want to prosecute the case against his brother on account of the settlement. Considering the fact that it is a 4 Crl.M.C.No.2474 of 2014 family dispute which resulted in the incident and now that has been settled between the family members, there is no possibility of any co-operation being obtained from the family members in the matter of conducting investigation or ultimately final report is filed, they will not support the case of the prosecution as well. Further it is not a matter of public interest and being a family dispute which resulted in the registration of the crime and since it has been settled due to intervention of mediators, pendency of the crime should not be a hurdle for the settlement and for restoration of peaceful atmosphere in the family. 8. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “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 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 5 Crl.M.C.No.2474 of 2014 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.” 9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that it is a family dispute between the two brothers which resulted in the incident and registration of the crime which has been settled due to intervention of mediators and original harmony in the family has been restored on account of the settlement and no possibility of conviction even if investigation is allowed to continue following the final report ultimately and it would be only wastage of judicial time, this Court feels that this is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote settlement 6 Crl.M.C.No.2474 of 2014 and restoration of peace and harmony in the family. 10. So, the application is allowed. Further proceedings in Crime No.134/2014 of Rajapuram police station as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg so as to inform the concerned police station for necessary further action in this regard. **==> picture [25 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.2474 of 2014 7