Shiju alias Shibu; Gopan; Priyallal alias Aniyan v. State of Kerala and Prashanth

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013/17TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2776 of 2013** ## **--------------------------------** **CC 194/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOLLAM CRIME NO. 564/2009 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATIO , KOLLAM** ## **---------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 3:** **-----------------------------------------------------** **1. SHIJU @SHIBU, S/O.RAJENDRAN, AGED 29 YEARS, GOPALASADANAM, ELUMALA, NJARAKKAL CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. GOPAN,S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI,ERAVUCHALIIL VEEDU, KADAVOOR FROM AMBADI HOUSE,KADAVOOR CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **3. PRIYALAL @ANIYAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 29 YEARS, MUTHALAZHIKAM HOUSE, NEAR THAVARATHU TEMPLE, KADAVOOR CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINNANT &STATE:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** ## **2. PRASHANTH, AGED 36 YEARS,** **S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SIVAMANGALAM, KADAVOOR CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 601.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.ABHILASH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 2776 of 2013** ## **---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** ## **ANNEXURE 1: THE COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRME NO 564/2009 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2: THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ANCHALUMOODU IN CRIME NO 564/2009.** ## **ANNEXURE 3: THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S.TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2776 of 2013 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 8th 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 3 in C.P.No.96 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.564 of 2009 of Anchalummoodu Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash the Annexure-1 FIR and Annexure-2 Final Report in Crime No.564 of 2009 of Anchalummoodu Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to the same including C.P.No.96 of 2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 15.10.2009 connected with the dispute regarding the election to the Thrikkadavoor Temple Committee, the petitioners along with 6 other unidentifiable persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the de facto complainant and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections **Crl.M.C.No.2776 of 2013** 2 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioners are that as the petitioners and the second respondent are friends and issue arose out of political animosity the matter is settled out of court. 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 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 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 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. The second **Crl.M.C.No.2776 of 2013** 3 respondent who is the de facto complainant sworn into Annexure-III affidavit. 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, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 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 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 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:- 4 **Crl.M.C.No.2776 of 2013** _“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 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_ 5 **Crl.M.C.No.2776 of 2013** _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 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 -1 FIR and Annexure -2 Final Report in Crime No.564 of 2009 of Anchalummoodu Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in **Crl.M.C.No.2776 of 2013** 6 C.P.No.96 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- 1, Kollam. **V.K.MOHANAN Judge** mns/