Shyam Kumar, Prasanth and Jyothish Lal v. Nakulan, Shylajakumari and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/3RD BHADRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4545 of 2014** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **S.C.NO. 163/2013 of PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM** **CRIME NO. 1229/2011 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM -------------** ## **PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 :** **---------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. SHYAM KUMAR, AGED 23 YEARS,** - **S/O.RAVEENDRAN, ARATTUVILANJAKKATHIL, CHENACHIRA CHERRY, PERINADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. PRASANTH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.PUSHPANGATHAN ACHERY, LEKSHMI VILASOM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM.** **3. JYOTHISH LAL, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.KANAKALAL, AKSHARA BHAVAN, VADAKKUMKARA, MYNNADU, KOLLAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.BINDU GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS / DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE :** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. NAKULAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SHANKARAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, PUNTHALATHAZHAM NAGAR - 58, PUNTHALATHAZHAM CHERRI, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 010.** **2. SHYLAJAKUMARI, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.AMBUJAKSHI AMMA, CHARUVILA VEEDU, PUNTHALATHAZHAM NAGAR - 58, PUNTHALATHAZHAM CHERRI, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 010.** **3. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **Crl.MC.No. 4545 of 2014 -----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE 1: THE COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.1229/2011 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2: THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO.1229/2011 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 3: THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGARDING COMPROMISE DATED 30.06.2014. ANNEXURE 4: THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING COMPROMISE DATED 30.6.2014.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4545 of 2014 ------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of August, 2014.** ## **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 the accused in S.C.No.163 of 2013 of the Principal Assistant Sessions court, Kollam, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.1229 of 2011 of Eravipuram Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 326, 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure 2 final report in the above crime and all further proceedings pursuant to the same including the above sessions case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that, due to previous animosity towards the son of the de facto complainant, the petitioners/accused entered into the **Crl.M.C.No.4545 of 2014** 2 house of the de facto complainant, in search of the son of respondents 1 and 2, believing that he is an SFI worker and the petitioners hit the de facto complainant and his wife with a lamp on their head and sustained injuries, and thereby committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. 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 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents. 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, as per Annexures 3 and 4 affidavits sworn into by the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents respectively. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 1[st] and 2[nd] **Crl.M.C.No.4545 of 2014** 3 respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the victim and the de facto complainant, do not intends to proceed 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. 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, 452, 324, 326, 307 r/w 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 **Crl.M.C.No.4545 of 2014** 4 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 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, it appears to me that the victim and the de facto complainant have 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:- “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.4545 of 2014** 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 matter is settled out of court, in the event of **Crl.M.C.No.4545 of 2014** 6 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 decision 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 2 final report in Crime No.1229 of 2011 of Eravipuram Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to the same including in S.C.No.163 of 2013 of the Principal Assistant Sessions court, Kollam. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge