Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Sathyan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/5TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2575 of 2013 ()** ## **--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 535/2010 of HONORABLE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR.** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** **-----------------------------------** **SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AMBADY HOUSE, MARUTHAYPOOR DESOM, PAVARATTY VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.NISHIN GEORGE VIJAYABABU** ## **RESPONDENTS :** **-------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. SATHYAN , AGED 36 YEARS,** **S/O. KONAN, VALIYAPURACKAL HOUSE, PAVARATTY VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI N SURESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.SATHEESH C.S** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2575 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **ANNEXURE 1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DTD.29.3.2008 IN CR.NO.433/2006 FILED BY PAVARATTY POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO.1266/2008 OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR, DTD.18.12.2010.** **ANNEXURE 3 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN SC NO.1266/2008 OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR.** **ANNEXURE 4 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD.14.3.2013 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE: NIL** **---------------------------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** **LSN** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2575 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of June, 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 the 5[th] accused in S.C.No.1266 of 2008 of the Principal Assistant Sessions court, Thrissur, which is split up since the petitioner was absconding and now re-numbered as S.C.No.535 of 2010, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No. 433 of 2006 of Pavaratty Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 and 308 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure -1 charge sheet and proceedings in S.C.No.535 of 2010 of the above court and all proceedings pursuant to Crime No.433 of 2006, as the matter is settled out of court, and no purpose will be served if he is forced to face the trial, 2 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2575 of 2013** especially in the light of Annexure A2 judgment by which the learned Judge acquitted the accused who already faced the trial. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the accused on 23.12.2006 at about 7.30 p.m. at Pavaratty in execution of their common object formed into an unlawful assembly and committed rioting carrying deadly weapons, wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent with an intention to commit culpable homicide and stabbed the 2[nd] respondent. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court between himself and the 2[nd] respondent, who is the de facto complainant, who filed Annexure-4 affidavit. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the other accused namely, A1, A4, A5 and A6 had already faced the trial in S.C.No.1266/08 of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, and by judgment dated 18.12.2010, the court below, particularly in paragraph 7 of the judgment, has found that PW1, the injured, failed to identify the assailants and he was 3 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2575 of 2013** declared as hostile and the occurrence witnesses Pws.2 to 4 were also turned hostile. 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 the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent has no grievance against him. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the 4 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2575 of 2013** 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, particularly in view of Annexure A2 judgment. 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 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 and 308 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] 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 5 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2575 of 2013** ## 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. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, 6 **Crl.M.C.No.2575 of 2013** 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 7 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2575 of 2013** relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure - 1 charge sheet and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.535/2010 of the Principal Assistant Sessions court and all further proceedings in Crime No.433/2006 of Pavaratty Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge