Rajesh P.G. v. State of Kerala & Others (Crl.M.C. No. 3969 of 2013)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/21ST BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3969 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------CRIME NO.648/2013 OF MARADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** **-------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** **--------------------------------------** ## **RAJESH.P.G, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 37 YEARS, PARADIYIL HOUSE, ARAKKULAM P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. SRI.R.VINU RAJ SMT.P.M.HRIDYA** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :** **-------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR , MARADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 031** **2. K.R.SURESH,S/O.RAJAN,AGED 38 YEARS, KAKKANADU HOUSE, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.PIN-682 512** ## ***ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED** ***R3: DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION DEPOT, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-656 661.** ***ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/09/2013 IN CRL.M.A.NO.7306/2013.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H.JASMINE R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.MANU (MAMMALASSERY) ADDL.R3 BY ADV.SRI. BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3969 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEX A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.648/2013 OF MARADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.AG 26761 ISSUED BY THE DTO , MUVATTUPUZHA DEPOT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 3969 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 12[th] day of September, 2013 ## **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.648/2013 of Maradu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341,323,332,294(b) and 427 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.648/2013 of Maradu Police Station as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 20.8.2013, at about 7.55 a.m. near Sub Station, Vyttila, the petitioner/accused intercepted the bus driven by the second respondent and slapped him on his face and abused him and the official duty of the de facto complainant was interrupted and KSRTC suffered a loss of `18,000/- as cancellation of trip. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the above case, the entire dispute is settled with the second respondent and the second Crl.M.C.No.3969 of 2013 :-2-: respondent does not want to prosecute the matter any further against the petitioner and to that effect, the second respondent had sworn into affidavit dated 9.9.2013. It is also the case of the petitioner that being the compensation, a sum of `25,000/- has already been paid to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation as evidenced by Annexure A2 and therefore, the K.S.R.T.C. has also no objection in dropping the proceedings against the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the Standing Counsel for the K.S.R.T.C.(Addl.R3) The learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.R.T.C., which is impleaded as additional third respondent, submitted that as the petitioner has already paid or compensated the K.S.R.T.C. as evidenced by Annexure A2 receipt, the K.S.R.T.C. has no objection in dropping the proceedings pending against the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during Crl.M.C.No.3969 of 2013 :-3-: the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 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 he has no grievance against him. As submitted by the Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, which is impleaded as additional third respondent, they have also no objection in dropping the proceedings. 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. 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, ## Crl.M.C.No.3969 of 2013 :-4-: it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only Sections 341,323,332,294(b) and 427 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 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. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108 ## (SC)], in which 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:- ## Crl.M.C.No.3969 of 2013 :-5-: “...... _... 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,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 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. Thus, I am of the view that 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 Crl.M.C.No.3969 of 2013 :-6-: 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 A1 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.648/2013 of Maradu Police Station. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ ## Crl.M.C.No.3969 of 2013 :-7-: