Seetharama v. Naveenkumar B.C, Udaya B.P, Divakara B.C and State of Kerala

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/3RD ASHADHA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 2545 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** **IN C.C.NO.1358/2012 of J.F.C.M.COURT-1, KASARAGOD CRIME NO.88/2009 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD** ## **------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:** **-----------------------** **SEETHARAMA, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KARIYA, KALINJADUKKA HOUSE, BADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **-------------------------------** **1. NAVEENKUMAR. B.C, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.CHOMA, BADOOR PADAVU HOUSE, BADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT-671 321.** **2. UDAYA B.P, AGED 27 YEARS,** - **S/O.BABU, BADOOR PADAVU HOUSE, BADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT-671 321.** **3. DIVAKARA B.C, AGED 25 YEARS,** - **S/O.CHOMA, BADOOR PADAVU HOUSE, BADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT-671 321.** **4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.** **R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANOOP** **R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.M.MADHUBEN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2545 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **----------------------** **ANNEXURE-A: A COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE BADIADKA POLICE IN CRIME NO.88 OF 2009 AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS CC NO.1358/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1, KASARAGOD** **ANNEXURE B: A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.595 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY IST RESPONDENT DATED 11.06.2013.** **ANNEXURE D: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.06.2013.** **ANNEXURE E. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.06.2013.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. ----------------------------** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **ln** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2545 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of June, 2013** ## **ORDER** 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 accused No.5 in C.C.No.1358 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.88 of 2009 of Badiadka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 & 324 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash entire proceedings in C.C.No.1358 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod in Crime No.88 of 2009 of Badiadka Police Station as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that, on 28/04/2009 at 20.40 hours at Badirpadavu in Badoor Village on the side of Seethamgoli-Perla public road due to political enmity, the accused persons wrongfully restrained the de facto ## Crl.M.C.No.2545 of 2013 :-2-: complainant and accused No.1 beat him with sticks and accused Nos.2 to 5 beat him with hands. Now the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled between them and the de facto complainant and the injured who are respectively respondent Nos.1 to 3 who filed affidavits respectively Annexures-C,D & E. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.1 to 3. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, during the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties, 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 respondent Nos.1 to 3 who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant/victims/injured do not intend to proceed Crl.M.C.No.2545 of 2013 :-3-: any further against the petitioner and they have no grievance 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 including Annexures-C, D & E affidavits. 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 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 & 324 read with Section 149 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 respondent Nos.1 to 3, it appears to me that the Crl.M.C.No.2545 of 2013 :-4-: injured/the victims/the de facto complainant have 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2545 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2545 of 2013 :-6-: 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 all proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.1358 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod in Crime No.88 of 2009 of Badiadka Police Station. Sd/- ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj /True copy/ P.A. to Judge.