Sreekumar P.V. alias Santhosh v. Jyothish Kumar and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2013/24TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC. No. 2811 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 825/2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------** **SREEKUMAR P.V. @ SANTHOSH, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. VASUDEVA PANICKER, PULIYANU HOUSE, PRAMADOM PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI. V. PHILIP MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. JYOTHISH KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. GOPALA PANICKER, REVATHY PULIYANU HOUSE, PRAMADOM PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 645.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **BY ADVS. SRI. JEPH JOSEPH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2811 of 2013 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** |**PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-**|**PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-**| |---|---| |**-----------------------------------**|| |**ANNEXURE 1 -**|**COPY OF THE FIR NO.825/13 REGISTERED BY THE**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO. 825/2013.**| |**ANNEXURE 2 -**|**AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.06.2013 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE 3 -**|**COMPROMISE DEED DATED 23.06.2013 ENTERED BETWEEN**| ||**THE PETITIONER AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE 4 -**|**COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 23.06.2013 ENTERED**| ||**BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT**| ||**WHICH IS PREPARED IN MALAYALAM LANGUAGE.**| |**ANNEXURE 5 -**|**AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.06.2013 SWORN BY THE**| ||**FIRST RESPONDENT.**| |**RESPONDENTS'**|**EXHIBITS:- NIL**| |**-------------------------------------**|| **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** sp ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2811 of 2013 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 15th day of July, 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 petitioner, who is accused in Crime No.825 of 2013 of Pathanamthitta Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 427 & 447 of I.P.C with a prayer to quash Annexure-I FIR registered by the Pathanamthitta Police station against the petitioner and the entire proceedings based on Crime No.825 of 2013 registered by the Pathanamthitta Police Station as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 23.05.2013 at about 6 pm the accused trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the first respondent and beat him on the left side of his neck and he attempted to attack the de facto complainant with a chopper and first respondent prevented the attack with his left hand which resulted in the cut injury and fracture on the left hand of the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioner has caused cut injuries on the right leg of first respondent and 2 **Crl.M.C.No.2811 of 2013** further alleged that the petitioner damaged the mobile phone of the first respondent and caused a loss of Rs.4,000/- and thus the petitioner/accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 427 and 447 of IPC and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the first respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute 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 first 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 petitioner and he has no grievance against him. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions 3 **Crl.M.C.No.2811 of 2013** of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. Annexure-2 is the affidavit of the first respondent. They have also filed a compromise deed which is signed by both petitioner as well as the de facto complainant and counter signed by the respective counsels. 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, 326, 427 and 447 of IPC 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 first respondent, it appears to me that the injured/the victim/the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/s accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the 4 **Crl.M.C.No.2811 of 2013** ## 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.”_ 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._ 5 **Crl.M.C.No.2811 of 2013** _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 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. 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2811 of 2013** In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure -I FIR in Crime No.825 of 2013 of Pathanamthitta Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN Judge** mns/