Shyju v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/23RD SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3408 of 2013** **--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.319/2009 OF ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGOD DATED 21-12-2010** **......** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.4/2011 OF\ ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGOD** **...... CRIME NO. 65/2009 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD** **....** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** **SHYJU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MUTHIRAKKAL HOUSE, ANAKKALLU, BELLUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SRI.K.M.HASHIR SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **-----------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION.** ## **2. AMEER ALI.P.V.,AGED 44 YEARS,** - **S/O.T.A.MOITHEEN KUNHI, PARAPALLY HOUSE, PULLOOR VILLAGE, P.O.AMBALATHARA, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.L.GEORGE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** **Crl.MC.No. 3408 of 2013** **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **--------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.65/2009 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-A2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (AD-HOC) III, KASARAGOD DATED 21.12.2010 IN SC 319/2009.** **ANNEXURE-A3: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.07.2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: -----------------------------------------------** ## **N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3408 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 14[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 is the 1[st] accused in S.C.No.4/2011 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc)-III, Kasaragod, pending as L.P.C.No.81/2012, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.65/2009 of Ambalathara Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 326, 308 r/w 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all proceedings in the above sessions case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant was assaulted by the accused in the above crime at about 7.15 p.m. on **Crl.M.C.No.3408 of 2013** 2 17.4.2009 at Ambalathara, on account of political enmity, and beaten him with an iron stick and caused injuries on the body. Now the case of the petitioner is that, during the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled with the de facto complainant/2[nd] respondent who sworn into Annexure A3 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent. 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 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 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is **Crl.M.C.No.3408 of 2013** 3 the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he has 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, 308 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 are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this **Crl.M.C.No.3408 of 2013** 4 Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has 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 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.3408 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3408 of 2013** 6 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 all proceedings in S.C.No.4/2011 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc)-III, Kasaragod, in Crime No.65/2009 of Ambalathara Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge