Shiju, Jude Ouseph and Alex Xavier v. State of Kerala and Saju (De facto complainant)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2013/21ST ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2864 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1631/2010 ON THE FILE OF ASST.SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM** ## **CRIME NO. 352/2009 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 3 AND 4:-:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. SHIJU, AGED 28 YEARS** - **W/O.LAYOLA BABU, TC34/1652, NEAR FATHIMA MATHA CHURCH PETTA VILLAGE, SHANGHUMUGHAM WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **2. JUDE OUSEPH, AGED 28 YEARS** - **S/O.OUSEPH, TC 34/930, SHANTHI BHAVAN VALIYATHOPE, PETTA VILLAGE, SHANGHUMUGHAM WARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **3. ALEX XAVIER, AGED 29 YEARS** - **S/O.XAVIER, TC 34/1347, NEAR AIRPORT LAYANA LANE, PETTA VILLAGE, SHANGHUMUGHAM WARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:-:** **--------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.** **2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION, VALIYATHURA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 008.** ## **3. SAJU,, AGED 41 YEARS** **S/O.SUNDARAN, SRI CHITHIRA NAGAR, T.C.NO.35/812 SANKUMUGHAM WARD, PETTA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 008.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAHUL SASI BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 2864 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CRIME NO.352 OF 2009 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS S.C.NO.1631 OF 2010 ON THE FILES OF ASST. SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **ANNEXURE 2. AN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **--------------------------------------** ## **\\ TRUE COPY \\** **PA TO JUDGE** **jm/** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2864 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of July, 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 petitioners, who are accused Nos.1, 3 & 4 in S.C.No.1631 of 2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.352 of 2009 of Valiyathura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506(ii), 308 & 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to call for the records in Annexure-1 Charge Sheet now pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C.No.1631 of 2010 in Crime No.352 of 2009 of Valiyathura Police Station and quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioners as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution allegation is that, out of animosity against the de facto complainant/3[rd] respondent, accused 1 to 4 on 30/06/2009 at about 7.30 p.m. came to Thoppinakam Crl.M.C.No.2864 of 2013 :-2-: junction at Valiyathura ward in Muttathara Village in a maruthi car and attacked the de facto complainant and accordingly he sustained injuries and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506(ii), 308 & 34 of IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 308 of IPC was incorporated with a view to make it as a Sessions Case. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are only incised wounds. Now the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court between themselves and the de facto complainant, who is the 3[rd] respondent herein. Annexure-2 is the affidavit sworn into by the de facto complainant/3[rd] respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 3[rd] 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 dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject Crl.M.C.No.2864 of 2013 :-3-: 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 3[rd] 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 including Annexure-2 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 under Sections 323, 324, 506(ii), 308 & 34 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature Crl.M.C.No.2864 of 2013 :-4-: 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 3[rd] respondent, it appears to me that 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 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.. Crl.M.C.No.2864 of 2013 :-5-: ## 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 parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the ## Crl.M.C.No.2864 of 2013 :-6-: 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 Charge Sheet and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.1631 of 2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge