Roopesh, Mahesh, Sijesh Lal and Shiju v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2013/31ST ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2999 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 1350/2013 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ----------------** ## **PETITIONER / ACCUSED :** **--------------------------------------** **1. ROOPESH, AGED 32, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, KUNNAKKALA HOUSE, U.C. COLLEGE, EAST KADUNGALLOOR.** **2. MAHESH, AGED 34, S/O. DAYANANDAN, JALAJA NIVAS, U.C. COLLEGE, EAST KADUNGALLOOR.** **3. SIJESH LAL, AGED 30, S/O. SIDHARTHAN, VARUVELLILPARAMBU HOUSE, KADAYAPPILLY, U.C. COLLEGE, EAST KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA.** **4. SHIJU, AGED 34, S/O. CHAKRAPANIVARIYER, SRIHARI, U.C. COLLEGE, EAST KADUNGALLOOR,** **ALUVA.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA)** ## **RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT :** **-------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT POF KERALA - 682 031.** **2. AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 20, S/O. PRADEEP KUMAR, VADAKKEVEEDU, KADUNGALLOOR KARA, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE PARAVOOR TALUK - 682 106.** **R2 BY ADVS. SMT.DEEPA MANOJ SRI.SANGEETH RAJ SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.MANOJ VASU R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 2999 of 2013 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**: **|**COPY OF FIR NO. 1350/13 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION**| |---|---|---| |||**DATED 21.4.2013.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**||**COPY OF COMPROMISE DATED 27.4.2013.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**||**AFFIDAVIT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.**| ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2999 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of July, 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 petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1350/13 of Aluva east Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 326, 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A1 FIR as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution case is that the de facto complainant is an engineering student in Bangalore. He is studying there for the last 2 years and he came to his house by taking leave and for celebrating “Vishu”. The matter being so, on 20.4.2013 at about 7 pm the second respondent, his mother and his mothers sister were going along in the procession of Kadungalloor Narasimha Swami Temple in connection with Arattu. When the second respondent reached at aqueduct the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant and he sustained fracture on mouth. Thus according to the prosecution, the petitioners are committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 326, 149 Crl.M.C.No.2999 of 2013 2 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled between himself and the de facto complainant as the issue connected with the temple procession at the intervention of the mediators. Annexure-A2 is the agreement arrived into the parties and Annexure-A3 is the affidavit sworn into by the de facto complainant who is the second respondent in the above case. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during 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 second 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 Crl.M.C.No.2999 of 2013 3 against the petitioners and he has no grievance against them. 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, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 326, 149 of IPC 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 second respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Crl.M.C.No.2999 of 2013 4 Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh** v. **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_ Crl.M.C.No.2999 of 2013 5 _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. 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 decisions Crl.M.C.No.2999 of 2013 6 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 F.I.R in Crime No.1350 of 2013 of Aluva Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN Judge** mns