THAIKANDI PUSHPAJAN v. STATE OF KERALA AND KERAT KUNHAMBU

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/10TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1842 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO.1006/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II, KANNUR CRIME NO. 124/2013 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT ------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-------------------------------------** **THAIKANDI PUSHPAJAN, S/O.KERAT KUNHAMBU, AGED 45 YEARS, THAIKANDI HOUSE, ADICHERI, MALAPPATTAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN-670 631.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **2. KERAT KUNHAMBU,AGED 77 YEARS, THAIKANDI HOUSE, ADICHERI, MALAPPATTAM P.O., KANNUR, PIN-670 631.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 BY SRI.M.RETHEESHKUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 1842 of 2014 () -----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **--------------------------------------------** **ANNEX 1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.124/13 DT. 25-2-2013 FILED BY MAYYIL POLICE.** **ANNEX 2 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.124/13 FILED BY MAYYIL POLICE. ANNEX 3 : AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1842 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of March, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.1006/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur, to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the son of 2[nd] respondent, who is the defactocomplainant in Crime No.124/2013 of Mayyil Police Station, which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent, against the petitioner, alleging offences under Section 452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report has been filed and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.1006/2013 on the file of the Judicial Crl. M.C. No.1842 of 2014 2 First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and the differences of opinion between the father and son has been resolved and he is now looking after the father. So he does not want to proceed against the petitioner. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well. Since the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they cannot file an application before the courts below for compounding and the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure-A1 FIR No.124/2013 dated 25.02.2013, registered by Mayyil Police, Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.124/2013 and consequential proceedings in C.C.No.1006/2013 pending before the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur and allow this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.” 3. 2[nd] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the difference of opinion between them has been resolved due to the intervention of mediators and now he has been given care and protection by his son, who Crl. M.C. No.1842 of 2014 3 is the petitioner herein and also his wife, who is aged and bedridden due to illness. He does not want to proceed against his son. He has filed Annexure-A3 affidavit to that effect. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, in view of the fact that, the differences of opinion between them has been settled and now they are living in harmony. He prayed for allowing the application. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court, submitted that, there is no other case against the petitioner, but opposed the application. 5. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner herein is the son of 2[nd] respondent, who is the defactocomplainant in the above case. It is also an admitted fact that, on the basis of statement given by the 2[nd] respondent, Mayyil police registered Annexure-A1 First Information Report, as Crime No.124/2013 against the petitioner, alleging offences under Section 452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Annexure-A2 final report 4 Crl. M.C. No.1842 of 2014 was field and it was taken on file as C.C.No.1006/2013 and it is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that, the petitioner is aged 77 years and the incident occurred due to some mis-understanding between himself and his son and now that has been resolved and harmony has been restored in the family and he is now looking after them affectionately. He does not want to proceed with the case. He had also filed Annexure-A3 report stating these facts. Considering the fact that, it was a dispute between the father and son, which resulted in this incident and ultimately in the registration of the cime and filing of the final report. Due to the intervention of family members, the matter has been settled and son has realised his fault and also realised his responsibility to look after his aged parents and he is looking after them and parents are satisfied with this subsequent change of character as well. So considering 5 Crl. M.C. No.1842 of 2014 the circumstances, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, the defacto-complainant or his witnesses will not support the prosecution and conviction in such cases is remote. Further, since it is a family dispute, which has been settled due to the intervention of mediators and brought harmony in the family, this court has to honour the same as well. ## 6. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)]** , it has been held that: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case an no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in Crl. M.C. No.1842 of 2014 6 relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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 mercantile, 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question (s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that, it is a family dispute, which resulted in the registration of crime and filing of final report, and father has forgiven his son, who is now looking after them and does not want to proceed with the prosecution and the possibility of conviction in such circumstances is remote and proceeding the case will be 7 Crl. M.C. No.1842 of 2014 only a wastage of judicial time, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 has to be invoked to quash the proceedings, in order to promote the settlement and harmony that has been restored in the family on account of the settlement. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.1006/2013 (Crime No.124/2013 of Mayyil Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur, is quashed as against the petitioner. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately for necessary further action. Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss