Sunil Kumar v. The State of Kerala and Paulson Kurian

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2013-08-26
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. No. 3595 of 2013 is allowed; quashing all proceedings in pursuance of Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.1585/2012 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Ernakulam, in light of the amicable settlement between the parties, with no public interest involved.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.C. allowed; quashed the FIR and all proceedings in pursuance of Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.1585/2012.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sunil Kumar

Respondents

The State of Kerala
Paulson Kurian

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.A. MujeeB

Counsels for Respondents

• V.H. Jasmine
• Anver Basheer

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Sunil Kumar, the accused in Crime No. 1585/2012 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, seeking to quash the FIR arising from an alleged assault under section 324 IPC. The case arises from previous enmity between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, who alleges the accused kicked him in the abdomen, an act constituting a personal offence. The matter has since been amicably settled between the parties, and the de facto complainant swore an affidavit stating no grievance against the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law given the out-of-court settlement. The de facto complainant’s counsel advised that he has no grievance and does not intend to proceed. The Public Prosecutor did not oppose quashing in light of the settlement. The High Court, relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, observed that the inherent power to quash must serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, particularly in cases with civil or private flavour where parties have settled their dispute. It noted that continuing trial would be fruitless and prejudicial to the accused. Consequently, the court allowed the Criminal M.C. and quashed all proceedings in pursuance of Annexure A1 FIR.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.Section 324 of IPCSection 320 of Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings
Ends of justice
Prevent abuse of process of the court
Settlement/compromise as a basis for quashing in cases with private or personal flavour (Gian Singh principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the case has been amicably settled between the parties and continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Since Section 324 IPC deals with a personal act and the de facto complainant has no grievance after the settlement, there is no public interest in continuing the case. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the petitioner seeks quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to secure ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The de facto complainant, though he has sworn an affidavit stating no grievance and does not intend to proceed, has placed on record that there is no grievance against the accused. The Public Prosecutor has no objection to quashing. The matter involves a private, personal dispute. The court should consider the settlement and the possibility of convicting the accused; since there is no public interest, quashing would not hamper justice.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012(4) KLT 108(SC)	Positive	Court relied on Gian Singh to recognize that the inherent power to quash may be exercised where the parties have settled and the ends of justice demand termination; applies to cases with private or personal nature and settlement.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/A4TH BH** ## **Crl.MC. No. 3595 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 1585/2012 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------** **SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN, 792, THOPPIL HOUSE MURIKKUMPUZHA, MANGALAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695317.** **BY ADV. SRI. P.A. MUJEEB** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31.** ## **2. PAULSON KURIAN,** **S/O.KURIAN, ULLAKUNNEL HOUSE, NJZOOR VILLAGE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686612.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H. JASMINE BY SRI. ANVER BASHEER** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3595 of 2013 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **-----------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1 : COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.1585/2012 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE-A2 : AFFIDAVIT DATED 21.08.2013 SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL --------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** sp ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 3595 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 26[th] day of August, 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. 1585/2012 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all proceedings in pursuance of Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.1585/2012 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Ernakulam as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the accused due to the previous enmity towards the de facto complainant kicked to the abdomen of the de facto complainant and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. The second respondent/de facto complainant had sworn into Annexure A2 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Crl.M.C.No.3595 of 2013 :-2-: second 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 second 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 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 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 offence involved in the above case is only Section 324 Crl.M.C.No.3595 of 2013 :-3-: of I.P.C. which is more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offence is 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 second 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 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.._ ## It is further held as follows:- “...... _... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from_ Crl.M.C.No.3595 of 2013 :-4-: _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 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. 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 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.3595 of 2013 :-5-: In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all proceedings in pursuance of Anenxure A1 FIR in Crime No.1585/2012 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Ernakulam. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ ## Crl.M.C.No.3595 of 2013 :-6-: