Vimal Venu and others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/14TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1951 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------SC.NO.128/2013 OF SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CRIME NO. 999/2010 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT** **------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/A1 TO A3:** **------------------------------------------------** **1. VIMAL VENU, AGED 23 YEARS,** - **S/O.VENUGOPALAN, KAMURAKONAM, KOTTACKAKAM MURI, ARYANAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. VIPIN VENU,AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.VENUGOPALAN, KAMURAKONAM, KOTTACKAKAM MURI, ARYANAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. VISHNU VISAKH,AGED 25 YEARS,** - **S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, VISHNU BHAVAN, KAMURAKONAM, KOTTACKAKAM MURI, ARYANAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 031** **2. BALACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, KRISHNA BHAVAN VEEDU,KAMURAKONAM, PAZHAYATHERUR MURI, ARYANAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. YEDHU KRISHNAN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.BALACHANDRAN NAIR, KRISHNA BHAVAN VEEDU, KAMURAKONAM, PAZHAYATHERUR MURI, ARYANAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE.P. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NIJOY** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1951 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: --------------------------------------------** **ANNEX-A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.999/2010 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **ANNEX-B: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEX-C: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1951 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.128/2013 pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, 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 petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.128/2013 pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The case was originated on the basis of a statement given by the defacto-complainant/ 2[nd] respondent herein, as Crime No.999/2010 of Aryanad Police Station of Thiruvananthapuram District, alleging offences under Section 341, 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Crl.M.C. No.1951 of 2014 2 Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad. Since the 3[rd] respondent herein was a child at the time of incident and he also sustained injuries in the case and by virtue of the establishment of Principal Sessions Court as Special Court for trying cases involving Child and Child Right Act as per Section 25 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, this case was committed to Principal Sessions Court, Thiurvananthapuram, and taken on file as S.C.No.128/2013 and it is pending before that court. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The alleged child has become major now. The petitioners are neighbours and the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of mediators and the relationship has been restored. The child who became major also has no grievance now. The offences alleged are not that grave in nature as well. No injury has been caused to any of the Crl.M.C. No.1951 of 2014 3 victims in the incident. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding the case as well. Since the case is pending before the Sessions Court, compounding will not be permitted by that court. So they have no other option, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: 1. Quash Annexure-A, Final Report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners pursuant to SC 128/2013 before the Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising out from Crime No.999/2010 of the Aryanad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not want to prosecute the case due to the mediation settlement on account of the intervention of well-wishers and family members and the relationship between them has been restored. They have filed Annexure-B and C affidavits, stating these facts. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in view of the Crl.M.C. No.1951 of 2014 4 settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and so, they prayed for allowing the application. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions as directed by this court, submitted that, except this case there is no other case against the petitioners, but opposed the application. 5. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent, a crime was registered as Crime No.999/2010 of Aryanad Police Station of Thiruvananthapuram District, under Section 341, 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as against the petitioners. The 3[rd] respondent was a minor at the time of incident. He was also present along with the defactocomplainant at the relevant time. Since both were wrongfully restrained and alleged to have been threatened, the crime was registered. After investigation, Annexure-A final report was filed and it was taken on file by the learned magistrate originally as C.C.No.540/2012. Later, when the Crl.M.C. No.1951 of 2014 5 Principal Sessions Court has been designated as Special Court for the trial of the cases involving Child or Child Rights under Section 25 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, this case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court, where it was taken on file as S.C.No.128/2013. Now the child has become major. The matter has been settled between the parties and they have filed Annexure-B and C affidavits stating that, due to the intervention of mediators, the matter has been settled. Further, except the fact that, they have wrongfully restrained and threatened, no bodily injury has been caused, even as per the prosecution case. The petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 are neighbours and on account of the settlement, their relationship has been restored. No possibility for conviction as well in such cases, as they will not support the case of the prosecution in view of the settlement and allowing the prosecution to continue will only a futile attempt and it will be wastage of judicial time Crl.M.C. No.1951 of 2014 6 ## 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 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 Crl.M.C. No.1951 of 2014 7 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, the matter has been settled between the parties and their old relationship has been restored on account of the settlement and there is no possibility of conviction in view of the settlement, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' can be invoked to quash the proceedings, as no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case and it will be only a wastage of judicial time and also to promote the settlement that has been arrived at between the parties and restoration of their original relationship. So the application is allowed and the further 8 Crl.M.C. No.1951 of 2014 proceedings in S.C. 128/2013 pending before Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram (Crime No.999/2010 of Aryanad Police Station) against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately for necessary further action in this matter. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss