Shiju and others v. State of Kerala and Jithin Tellus and Saneesh

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/8TH BHADRA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3672 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **CRIME NO. 956/2012 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5: --------------------------** **1. SHIJU, AGED 35, S/O.CHAKRAPANI, SREE HARI HOSUE, EAST KADUNGALLOOR KADUNGALLOOR.** **2. SAJIN NANDAKUMAR, AGED 24, S/O.NANDAKUMAR, NANDANAM HOUSE, WEST KADUNGALLOOR, KADUNGALOOR.** **3. SIJEESH, AGED 30, S/O.SIDHARTHAN, VARAVELIPARAMBU HOUSE, KADUNGALOOR VILLAGE, EAST KADUNGALOOR.** **4. GIREESH, AGED 36, S/O.KOCHAZHAKAN, NALOODIPARAMBU HOUSE, MUPATHADAM KARA, ERAMAM, KADUNGALOOR VILLAGE.** **5. RAJEESH, AGED 29, S/O.KUMARAN, KOLATHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUPATHADAM KARA, ERAMAM, KADUNGALOOR VILLAGE.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA)** **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. JITHIN TELLUS, AGED 22, S/O.TELLUS GEORGE, NEISSARY HOUSE, PARAVOOR KAVALA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE. 683 108.** **3. SANEESH, AGED 22, S/O.SIVAN, KAPPOORI ANNORPILLY HOUSE, KADUNGALOOR KARA KADUNGALOOR EAST VILLAGE. 683 108.** **R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3672 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1. COPY OF FIR NO.956/12 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION DATSED 27.12.12.** **ANNEXURE A2.AFFIDAVIT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A3.AFFIDAVIT OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **----------------------** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **cl** ## **V.K. MOHANAN, J.** ...................................................... CRL.M.C.NO.3672 OF 2013 ...................................................... Dated this the 30[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 5 in Crime No. 956/2012 of Binanipuram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,294(b) and 323 read with Section 149 of I.P.C with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 FIR as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 26.12.2012 at about 9.30 p.m the petitioners/accused assaulted the second and third respondents and they sustained injuries. The defacto complainant and the injured treated in the Government Hospital, Aluva. The police registered the aforesaid crime on the strength of the statement given by the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,294 (b) and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC. Now the case of the third petitioner is that during the pendency of the above case, the entire dispute is settled with the second respondent, who is the defacto complainant and the third respondent, who is one of the injured, were +++++++++++++-+9+**- respectively sworn into Annexures A2 and A3 affidavits and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] 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 dispute is settled amicably between the parties 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 the specific instruction received from the second 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 including Annexure-A2 and A3 affidavits. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the +++++++++++++-+9+**- 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 143,147,294(b),323 and 149 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 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 +++++++++++++-+9+**- 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 +++++++++++++-+9+**- 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........” 8. 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 +++++++++++++-+9+**- as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure A1and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.956/2012 of Binanipuram Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** cl