Saneesh, Raneesh and Arshad v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/5TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3612 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN S.C.NO.152/2012 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR)** **(F.I.R.NO.91/2011 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, PAVARATTY, TRISSUR)** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:** **----------------------------------------------** ## **1. SANEESH, AGED 29,** - **S/O.SUBRAMONIAN, 'NANGARATTIL', POOVATHUR DESOM ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT** ## **2. RANEESH, AGED 25,** - **S/O.SUBRAMONIAN, 'NANGARATTIL', POOVATHUR DESOM ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT** ## **3. ARSHAD AGED 20 YEARS** - **S/O.HASSAN, 'RAYAM MARACKAR VEETTIL', POOVATHUR DESOM ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT** **BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANTS:** **----------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE(CRIME NO.91/2011), PAVARATTY POLICE STATION PAVARATTY, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM** ## **2. BAIJU, AGED 29,** - **S/O.KOCHUNNI, CHAKKANDA VEETTIL, KANJIRAKUTTY DESOM, ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD** ## **3. BIJU, AGED 28,** **S/O.RAMANKUTTY, PULIKKAN VEETTIL, ELAVALLY VILLAGE CHAVAKKAD** **4. BINEESH, AGED 22, S/O.BALAN, ALLUPADIKARAN VEETTIL, ELAVALLY VILLAGE CHAVAKKAD** ## **5. VINEESH, AGED 22,** - **S/O.VELAYUDHAN, THATHOTTU VEETTIL, POOVATTHU DESOM ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD** **R2,3,4,5,6 BY ADV. SMT.K.G.UMADEVI R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-082013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **MNS** **Crl.MC.No. 3612 of 2013 ()** **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1:A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FINAL REPORT IN FIR NO.91/2011 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:NIL** **---------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3612 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of August, 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 3 in S.C.No.152/2012 of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.91/2011 of Pavaratty Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 final report and all further proceedings in the above sessions case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 20.2.2011 at about 7.30 p.m. when the 2[nd] respondent talking with his friend Santhosh in the road on the western side of the Kanjiramkutty Temple, the petitioners came in a **Crl.M.C.No.3612 of 2013** 2 motor cycle and the 1[st] petitioner pushed him asking as to why he was blocking the road and assaulted him using his hand and the 2[nd] petitioner beaten him with a stone in his head and the 3[rd] petitioner assaulted the 2[nd] respondent using his hand and thereafter the 2[nd] petitioner attempted to attack the 2[nd] respondent with stone and he averted the attack on twisting his head. If the said attack was not averted, it would have been danger to his life. When persons in the locality assembled and taken the 2[nd] respondent to the hospital, the petitioners attacked respondents 2 to 5 again and in that attack, respondent nos.3 to 5 sustained injuries. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court with the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant and the injured who sworn into an affidavit dated 26.8.2013. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted **Crl.M.C.No.3612 of 2013** 3 that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and the injured do not intends to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3612 of 2013** 4 involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 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 respondents, it appears to me that the de facto complainant and the injured have 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3612 of 2013** 5 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3612 of 2013** 6 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 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 final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.152/2012 of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, [in Crime No.91/2011 of Pavaratty Police Station]. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge