Sony S/o Soman v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013/13TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2730 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC. NO.795/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VARKALA. CRIME NO. 528/2012 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **............** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **SONY, S/O. SOMAN, AGED 33 YEARS, VALIYAVILA VEEDU, NJEKKADU, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU, SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU.** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **2. BAIJU, S/O.GOPI, AGED 37 YEARS, BAIJU NIVAS, VELANKONAM, CHEMMARUTHI DESOM, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.ABHILASH.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, ALONG WITH CRMC NO.2731 OF 2013,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2730 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE 1 THE COPY OF THE FIR WITH FIS IN CIRME NO. 528/2012 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA IN CRIME NO. 528/2012. ANNEXURE 3 THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos. 2730 & 2731 of 2013 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 4[th] day of June, 2013 ## **O R D E R** As the parties to the above M.C's are one and same and especially when the above petitions are arouse out of case and counter case and when the subject matters are also same, the above two M.C are heard together and being disposed by this common order. 2. Crl.M.C.No.2730/2013 is filed with a prayer to quash proceeding in C.C.No795/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala which is the case instituted upon the report in Crime No.528/2012. The accused therein are the petitioners in the above M.C and the second respondent therein is the defacto complainant whereas Crl.M.C.No.2731/2013 is filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.P.No.96/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala which is also instituted upon the report in Crime No.515/2012 of Kallambalam Police Station. The respondent in the above M.C is the defacto complainant in the Crime No.515/2012 of Kallambalam Police Station who is the accused in Crime No.528/2012 of same Police Station and **Crl.M.C.Nos. 2730 & 2731 of 2013** 2 the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2730/2013. The subject matter of the above two crime are arouse out of dispute with respect to a pathway leading to the house of the accused in Crime No.528/2012 who is the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2730/2013. In Crime No. 528/2012 the offences involved are under Section 447, 294(b), 324, 308 and r/w Section 34 of IPC, where as in Crime No.515/2012 the offences involved are under Section 294(b), 324, 308, 447 and r/w Section 34 of IPC. Now, both the counsel for the petitioners in the above M.C's are submitted that the disputes between the parties are settled out of Court and the defacto complainant in the above cases are not interested in further prosecuting the matter. According to the defacto complainant in Crime No.528/2012 sworn into an affidavit filed in Annexure-3 produced in Crl.No.2730/2013, similarly the defacto complaint in Crime No.515/2012 also filed Annexure-5 affidavit. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above crimes, the **Crl.M.C.Nos. 2730 & 2731 of 2013** 3 matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crimes. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crimes are abuse of process of law and proceedings. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against them. 7. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petitions. 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 petitions. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in these cases, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above cases are only Sections 447, 294(b), 324, 308 and r/w Section 34 of IPC. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is **Crl.M.C.Nos. 2730 & 2731 of 2013** 4 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 respondents, it appears to me that the the de facto complainants 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 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.Nos. 2730 & 2731 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 cases and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present cases, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present cases. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to **Crl.M.C.Nos. 2730 & 2731 of 2013** 6 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, these Criminal M.C.'s can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, these Crl.M.C's are allowed, quashing in Crime Nos. 528/2012 & 515/2012 of Kallambalam Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS