Ravi Kumar K. v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/21ST CHAITHRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 2120 of 2014 () --------------------------- CC 1160/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.1,PARAPPANANGADI CRIME NO. 419/2011 OF THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------- RAVI KUMAR K., AGED 40 YEARS S/O.LATE KUTTAPPAN, ARIKUZHIKKARA HOUSE, KUTTIKATTOOR KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIROORANGADI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI-682031. 2. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.MOIDEEN, THOZHAMANNIL HOUSE, PUTHIYATHUPURAYA KUNNUMPURAM, MALAPPURAM-676505. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.ANANDAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2120 of 2014 () --------------------------- ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE: ---------------------ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 419/2011 OF THIROORANGADI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 1160/2011 ON THE FILE OF JFCM I, PARAPPANAGADI. ANNEXURE A3: ORIGINAL NOTARY ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT DT.19-1-2014 SWORN BY R2. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smv ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.2120 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of April, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.1160/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi, to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the ‘Code’). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1160/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi, which was originated on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent/ defacto-complainant, as Annexure-AI first information report as Crime No.419/2011 of Thiroorangadi Police Station under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 118(a) of Kerala Police Act 2 Crl. M.C. No.2120 of 2014 and after investigation, Annexure-AII final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.1160/11 and it is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. Though Section 118(a) of Police Act has been incorporated, in fact, according to the petitioner, the medical certificate will go to show that though he consumed alcohol, he was on under the influence of alcohol so as to attract the offence under Section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. Since some of the offences are noncompoundable in nature, they could not file an application before the court below, so the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “For these and other ground that may be allowed to be advance at the time of hearing it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in Annexure A2 final report pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.1, Parappanangady in C.C.No.1160/11 arising of of crime No.63/2011 of Crl. M.C. No.2120 of 2014 3 Thiroorangadi Police Station and allow this petition accordingly.” 3. 2[nd] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties and the 2[nd] respondent does not want to prosecute the petitioner and also submitted that, he had filed Annexure-AIII affidavit stating these facts. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though Section 118(a) of Kerala Police Act is incorporated, no offence under that Section has been attracted and in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and so the petitioner prays for allowing the application. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, there is no other case against the petitioner, but opposed the application on the ground that Section 118(a) of Police Act has been incorporated. 5. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent as defactocomplainant, Annexure-AI first information report was Crl. M.C. No.2120 of 2014 4 registered as Crime No.419/2011 of Thiroorangadi Police Station, against the petitioner, alleging offences under Section 427 and 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act. It is also an admitted fact that, after investigation, Annexure-AII final report was filed, it was taken on file as C.C.1160/2011 and it is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi. In the meantime, the matter has been settled between the parties. The 2[nd] respondent has filed Annexure-AIII affidavit stating that, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties due to the intervention of well-wishers of both the parties, he does not want to prosecute the case. 6. The counsel for the petitioner had produced the copy of the medical certificate, which will go to show that, though smell of the alcohol was felt at the time of examination, he was not under the influence of alcohol. So under such circumstances, the possibility of conviction under Section 118(a) of Kerala Police Act will be remote. 5 Crl. M.C. No.2120 of 2014 Further, in view of the settlement, neither the defactocomplainant nor his witnesses will support the case of the prosecution as well. Further the petitioner is a doctor and considering the fact that, the matter has been settled and the possibility of conviction is remote. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case, as it will amount to wastage of judicial time. 7. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)]** , it has been held 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 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 Crl. M.C. No.2120 of 2014 6 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. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision cited (supra) and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled and there is no possibility of conviction in view of the settlement and proceeding with the case will be only a wastage of judicial time, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 has 7 Crl. M.C. No.2120 of 2014 to be invoked to quash the proceedings. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.1160/2011 (Crime No.419/2011 of Thiroorangadi Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi, as 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