Rajasekharan Pillai @ Kannan and Madhusoodhanan Pillai v. State of Kerala and Sanal Kumar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/12TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 3022 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO. 968/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT.-I, KOLLAM CRIME NO. 262/2014 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** **----------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :** **--------------------------------------** **1. RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI @ KANNAN, S/O. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, AGED 27 YEARS, KOYIKKALAZHIKATHU, NETHAGI NAGAR-164, KILIKOLLOOR CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM.** **2. MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI,** - **S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, AGED 58 YEARS,** - **MUKHATHALA VEEDU, NEAR MUKHATHALA SCHOOL, KAZHAVOOR CHERRY, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.PRATHEESH P. SMT.RENY ANTO** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE :** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. SANAL KUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN, SAKSHI BHAVAN, CHEMMAKKAD CHERRY, PANAYAM VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT ASWATHY, SANTHI NAGAR - 140, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 371.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE P. R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3022 of 2016 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 262/2014 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 262/2014 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING COMPROMISE DATED 25.4.2016.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE Mn** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. ==================== Crl.M.C. No. 3022 of 2016 =================== Dated this the 02[nd] day of June, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 968 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam involving offences punishable under Sections 447, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd respondent herein is the de facto complainant. This petition is filed seeking to quash all further proceedings in the above case on the ground that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has been settled and compromised. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 13.02.2014 at 08.30 p.m., the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant with an iron rod and sword causing him injuries. **Crl. M.C. No.3022 of 2016** -: 2 :- - 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. - 4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the incident had occurred when the de facto complainant had trespassed into the shop room of the father of the 1st petitioner. It is further submitted that the parties are neighbours and at the instance of mediators and well-wishers the disputes have been amicably settled. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel and it is submitted that the incident had occurred on the spur of a moment and he does not wish that prosecution against the petitioners should continue any further. It is also submitted that Annexure A3 affidavit has been sworn to by the 2nd respondent asserting that the 2nd respondent has no objection in quashing the **Crl. M.C. No.3022 of 2016** -: 3 :- ## criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein. 5.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the allegation against the petitioners reveals that serious injuries were inflicted on the _de facto_ complainant. According to the learned Public Prosecutor this is not a fit case where powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised to bring the criminal prosecution to a premature termination. - 6.It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more _res integra._ **Crl. M.C. No.3022 of 2016** -: 4 :- ## 7.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC** **303),** the Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466)** and **Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653** . 8.It was held that the 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. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly **Crl. M.C. No.3022 of 2016** -: 5 :- quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the de facto complainant to great oppression and prejudice. 9.In respect of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that this is not a fit case where the discretionary powers under Section 482 can be exercised, I take note of the pronouncements of the Apex Court in **State of M.P. v. Manish and Others** **Crl. M.C. No.3022 of 2016** -: 6 :- **([2015] 8 SCC 307)** and also in **State of M.P. v. Deepak and Others ([2014] 10 SCC 285)** wherein it was held that offence under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be treated as a purely personal dispute between the parties as it had an impact on the society. In the instant case, the allegation is only under Section 326 of the IPC and the 2nd respondent is here asserting that he does not wish the criminal prosecution against the petitioners should continue. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to reject the prayer of the petitioners. 10.After having anxiously considered the submissions, it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement **Crl. M.C. No.3022 of 2016** -: 7 :- and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. In the result, the petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C. No.968 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam, shall stand quashed. **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE.** vsv