Sebastian v. State of Kerala and Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/7TH ASHADHA, 193** **Crl.MC.No. 2643 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **CRIME NO. 414/2012 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM** **PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:** **-----------------------** **SEBASTIAN, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. BRUNO, RATHEESH BHAVAN, PADAPPAKKARA P.O. N.S.NAGAR, MULAVANA VIA, KOLLAM-691503.** **BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (KOLLAM)** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS:** **-----------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **2. PAUL SHAJI, AGED 42 YEARS** **S/O. ANTONY, SHYNE VIHAR, KOTTAPPURAM MULAVANA P.O., KOLLAM-691503.** **3. ANTONY, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, VILAYIL VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM MULAVANA P.O., KOLLAM-691503.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** **Crl.MC.No. 2643 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **--------** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRINE NO. 414/2012 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2- AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24-6-2013.** **ANNEXURE 3- AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24-6-2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **-----------------------** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2643 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of June, 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.414 of 2012 of Kundara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427 r/w 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A- I F.I.R. in Crime No.414 of 2012 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam district as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 6.3.2012 at about 7.45 pm, while the de facto complainant and his brother-in-law were returning from Padappukara in a motor bike bearing registration No.KL-02/T-4247, the first accused and others assaulted them. The first accused also participated in beating the de facto complainant as well as the brother and also alleged that the accused person stolen Rs.6790/- and 2.45 sovereigns of gold chain and thus the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 143, **Crl.M.C.No.2643 of 2013** 2 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. The second respondent who is the defacto complainant filed Annexure-2 affidavit and the another injured filed Annexure-A3 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents two and three. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 respondents two and three who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant/victim/injured do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and they have no grievance 3 **Crl.M.C.No.2643 of 2013** against him. 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 Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code 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 two and three, it appears to me that the injured/the victim/the de facto complainant has no further 4 **Crl.M.C.No.2643 of 2013** 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 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_ 5 **Crl.M.C.No.2643 of 2013** _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 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, 6 **Crl.M.C.No.2643 of 2013** 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 A-1F.I.R and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.414 of 2012 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam district and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN Judge** mns/