Sony Joseph, Saji Sebastian, Martin P.J., Aniyankunju @ Vincent.M.M., Suresh Babu.K., Joseph @ Sijo v. State of Kerala and Chandy @ Alichan and Shijo

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/14TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3279 of 2013** ## **---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 461/2013 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION , IDUKKI** **PETITIONERS:ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6: --------------------------------** **1. SONY JOSEPH, PRAKKATTU VEEDU, UPPUTHARA.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **2. SAJI SEBASTIAN, CHETTUMADAYIL HOUSE, AYYAPPANKOVIL.P.O., MERIKULAM, IDUKKI.** **3. MARTIN.P.J., PRAKKATTU VEEDU, UPPUTHARA.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **4. ANIYANKUNJU @ VINCENT.M.M. MULLAMTHANATH HOUSE, AYYAPPANKOVIL.P.O., MATTUKATTA, IDUKKI.** **5. SURESH BABU.K., S/O.KUMARAN, THIRUTHALIPARAMBIL VEEDU, THAVARANA BHAGAM, LONDRI.P.O., UPPUTHARA.** **6. JOSEPH @ SIJO, S/O.JOSEPH, PRAKKATTU HOUSE, UPPUTHARA KARA, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** - **BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN** - **SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT** **------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UPPUTHARA.** **2. CHANDY @ ALICHAN, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 54 YEARS, THOPPIL HOUSE, MATTUUKKATTA BHAGAM, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUNCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN 685 554.** **3. SHIJO, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.THANKACHAN @ JOY, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MATTUKKATTA BHAGAM, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUNCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN 685 554.** **R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.M.C.No.3279 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONERS' **|**EXHIBITS:**|| |---|---|---| |**ANNEXURE-I**|**:**|**COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME**| |||**No.461/2013 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE**| |||**STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE-II**|**:**|**COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION **| |||**STATEMENT DTD.24/7/2013.**| |**ANNEXURE-III**|**:**|**AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT (DE**| |||**FACTO COMPLAINANT) DATED**| |||**3/8/2013.**| |**ANNEXURE-IV**|**:**|**AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| |||**(INJURED)DTD.3/8/2013.**| |||**True copy**| |||**P.A. to Judge**| ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3279 of 2013 ----------------------------------Dated this the 05[th] day of August, 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 to 6 in Crime No.461 of 2013 of Upputhara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 323, 341 & 294(b) of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-I F.I.R. in Crime No.461 of 2013 of Upputhara Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to the same, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 21/7/2013 at about 8.15 p.m., all the accused intercepted goods auto rickshaw bearing registration No.K.37B-1752 driven by the de facto complainant and conjointly committed robbery of an amount of `20,000/- and the autorickshaw, after causing injuries to him and another who was travelling along with him. The 2[nd] respondent herein is the de facto complainant. The 3[rd] respondent herein is the other injured person. Thus, Crl.M.C.No.3279 of 2013 :-2-: according to the prosecution, the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 6 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 395, 323, 341 & 294(b) of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioners is that during the pendency of the crime, the matter is settled between the petitioners and the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant and 3[rd] respondent, who is the injured on the ground that there were frequent business transactions among the accused, the second respondent/ the de facto complainant and the 3[rd] respondent/injured. Accordingly, the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant and the 3[rd] respondent/injured have respectively sworn into AnnexuresIII and IV affidavits. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. 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 Crl.M.C.No.3279 of 2013 :-3-: 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 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and the injured do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have 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 Annexures-III and IV affidavits. 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. ## Crl.M.C.No.3279 of 2013 :-4-: 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 395, 323, 341 & 294(b) 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 Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, it appears to me that the injured 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3279 of 2013 ## :-5-: 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 Crl.M.C.No.3279 of 2013 :-6-: 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 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. ## Crl.M.C.No.3279 of 2013 :-7-: In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-I F.I.R. in Crime No.461 of 2013 of Upputhara Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. As the entire criminal case pending against the petitioners, who are the accused, is quashed, the Registry is directed to forward this order to the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Peermade. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj