Sugatha Kumary @ Padma Kumary; Sreejesh; Rinu Jacob v. State of Kerala; Vijayamma; Ravendran Nair

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/8TH ASWINA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5536 of 2014 -----------------------------------** **CRIME NO. 891/2013 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA ----------------** ## **PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1-3 :** **----------------------------------------------** **1. SUGATHA KUMARY @ PADMA KUMARY, W/O.MURALEEDHARAN, PEACE COTTAGE, WARD NO.I, NOORANADU PANCHAYAT, ATTUVA MURI, NOORANAD VILLAGE.** **2. SREEJESH,** - **S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, PEACE COTTAGE, WARD NO.I NOORANADU PANCHAYAT, ATTUVA MURI, NOORANAD VILLAGE.** ## **3. RINU JACOB,** - **S/O.JACOB RAJU, VALLYATHU VADAKKETHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, ATTUVA MURI, NOORANAD VILLAGE.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS / STATE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & CW-2 :** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. (CRIME NO.891 OF 2013 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT).** **2. VIJAYAMMA, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, LATHA BHAVANAM , EDAPPON MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE.** **3. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN PILLAI, LATHA BHAVANAM, EDAPPON MURI. NOORANADU VILLAGE.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJESH KUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **Crl.MC.No. 5536 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 12.07.2013 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA. ANNEXURE 2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA BY THE POLICE. ANNEXURE 3: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.09.2014. ANNEXURE 4: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.09.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5536 of 2014** **------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of September, 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 C.C.No.293 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.891 of 2013 of Nooranadu Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(1) r/w section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to set aside Annexure A1 FIR and A2 final report, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 11.7.2013 at 5.30 p.m., due to an enmity on account of not paying the interest of one month for the amount of Rs.15,000/- borrowed by de facto complainant's husband **Crl.M.C.No.5536 of 2014** 2 Ravindran Nair, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to physically assault and to threaten, causing fear of life, criminally trespassed into the residence, wherein the de facto complainant residing with the family and insulted them by abusing filthy language and beaten on the face of the de facto complainant's husband and beaten the de facto complainant with the wood kept in their possession and kicked her on her abdomen and leg, and further threatened their children and thereby committed the offences 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 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 case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the **Crl.M.C.No.5536 of 2014** 3 dispute, which is the subject matter of the above case, as per Annexure A3 sworn into by the 2[nd] respondent and Annexure A4 sworn into by the 3[rd] respondent. 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] 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 CW2 respectively, do not intends to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against the petitioners. 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 **Crl.M.C.No.5536 of 2014** 4 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 452, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(1) r/w 34 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 de facto complainant and CW2 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:- **Crl.M.C.No.5536 of 2014** 5 “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. 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........” **Crl.M.C.No.5536 of 2014** 6 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 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, setting aside Annexure A1 FIR and A2 final report in Crime No. 891 of 7 ## **Crl.M.C.No.5536 of 2014** 2013 of Nooranadu Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.293 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge