Rajesh C.M. v. Rijimol M.C, S.I.OF Police Mattannur Police Station, Kannur District and State of Kerala

## **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. 4912 of 2014** **----------------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 788/2014 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR** **------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------** **RAJESH C.M, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, RAJESH NIWAS, KAPPAD.P.O. CHELORA AMSOM, VALANNOR DESOM, KANNUR TALUK-670 006.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **---------------------------------------------------------** **1. RIJIMOL M.C, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.BHASKARAN, JINESH BHAVAN, ELAMPARA.P.O. MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 702.** ## **2. S.I.OF POLICE** - **MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 702.** **3. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR R2 & 3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 4912 of 2014** **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------------------------** ## **ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT.** **ANNEXURE II- TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **ANNEXURE III- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES --------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4912 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 Crime No.788 of 2014 of Mattannur Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-I FIR and all further proceedings in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 12.8.2014 at about 3.15 p.m. while the 1[st] respondent was travelling in a private bus from Mattannur to Kannur, the petitioner caught hold of her hand and kicked on her leg and attempted to outrage her modesty and thereby committed the offence 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 **Crl.M.C.No.4912 of 2014** 2 well as the 1[st] respondent. 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 was the subject matter of the above case, as per AnnexureII agreement entered between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent and Annexure III affidavit sworn by the 1[st] respondent. 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] respondent, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant, does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and she has no grievance against her. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the **Crl.M.C.No.4912 of 2014** 3 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 Section 354 of I.P.C. which is 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] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/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. **Crl.M.C.No.4912 of 2014** 4 ## **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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.4912 of 2014** 5 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, according to me, following the decision cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.4912 of 2014** In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-I FIR and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.788 of 2014 of Mattannur Police. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge