## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/15TH PHALGUNA, 1935**
## **Crl.MC.No. 5480 of 2013**
## **-----------------------------------**
## **CRIME NO. 2045/2013 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM -----------------**
**PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:**
**-----------------------------------------------**
## **1. VINCENT, AGED 58 YEARS,**
- **S/O.YOHANNAN, RAJESH BHAVAN, THENGUVILAVEEDU, PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.**
**2. RAJESH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.VINCENT, RAJESH BHAVAN, THENGUVILAVEEDU, PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.**
**3. SANTHOSH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.VINCENT, RAJESH BHAVAN, THENGUVILAVEEDU, PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.**
**4. JOSE @ PODI, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.VINCENT, RAJESH BHAVAN, THENGUVILAVEEDU, PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.**
**BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR**
## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:**
**-----------------------------------------------------------------------**
**1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.**
**2. JOSEPH @ LELAM SAJ, AGED 41 YEARS,**
- **S/O.NEPOLEAN, S.S.VILLA, PADAPPAKKARA DESOM, PADAPPAKARA P.O., PERAYAM CHERRY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 503.**
**R2 BY ADV. SRI.RANJIT BABU R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Msd.
**Crl.MC.No. 5480 of 2013**
**----------------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
**----------------**
## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:**
**-------------------------------------------**
**ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2045/2013 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B: THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE CASE EVIDENCING SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**
**RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------**
## **NIL**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**P.S.TO JUDGE.**
Msd.
## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.**
................................................. Crl.M.C.No.5480 of 2013 .................................................. Dated this the 6[th] day of March, 2014.
## **O R D E R**
This is an application filed by the petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.2045/13 of Kundara police station to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that a crime has been registered on the basis of a statement given by the second respondent/defacto complainant against the petitioners alleging the offences under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter has been settled between the parties as they are neighbours and respectable persons of the locality have intervened for settlement of the issue. Now harmony has been restored between them. Further, the incident itself happened due to ill effect of alcoholic consumption. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case. Since non compounding offences have been incorporated, the police will not drop the proceedings. So they have no other option but to approach this court
2
Crl.M.C.No.5480 of 2013
seeking the following reliefs:
1. Quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners as in Crime No.2045/2013 of Kundara Police Station.
2. Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court.
3. The second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that due to intervention of mediators, the matter has been settled and the dispute arose between them due to consumption of alcohol. So no purpose will be served by proceeding with the investigation in the case.
4. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the settlement no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court submitted that there is no other case between the petitioners or the defacto complainant and they are neighbours and it is understood from the investigating officer that the matter has been settled due to intervention of panchayat President and others of the locality. But, however, considering the nature of the offence alleged, opposed the application for quashing the case at this stage.
6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement
given by the second respondent, Kundara police has registered
Crl.M.C.No.5480 of 2013
3
a case as Crime No.2045/13 against the petitioners evidenced by Annexure A alleging the offences under Sections 294 (b), 324, and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation is in the primitive stage. It is at this stage that the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of local panchayat President and other well wishers and friends of the parties. It is also seen from the wound certificate regarding the cause of injury as “മദ�പ�ച� വന� മ�ന� ന�ല� “ പപര പ�രന� ഇറച�വവട�ന കത�വക�ണ� ഉപദ�വ�ചത�ല വവച� . It is also mentioned in the wound certificate that there is alcoholic presence in the defacto complainant and the injured as well. So it is clear from this that the incident occurred at the time when both were consumed alcohol and it is an after effect of consumption of alcohol by both the injured and the accused persons in this case. Normally this Court will not be inclined to quash the proceedings involving grave offences at the primitive stage of investigation itself. But in this case, it is seen that the petitioners and the defacto complainant were neighbours and the incident itself happened as an ill effect of consumption of alcohol by the both the parties. They have now realised the ill effect and the matter itself is settled due to intervention of
Crl.M.C.No.5480 of 2013 4
respectable persons of the locality including the panchayat President.
## 7. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State**
**of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
“But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly 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.”
8. 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 due to intervention of respectable persons of the locality including the panchayt President and the incident
Crl.M.C.No.5480 of 2013
5
itself happened as an ill effect of alcohol consumption and since the matter has been settled, no purpose will be served in continuing with the investigation in the case as they are not going to support the case of the prosecution and if ultimately final report is filed and the case is allowed to proceed with, that will amount to wastage of judicial time also. Further it is seen from the affidavit filed by the second respondent that harmony has been restored on account of the settlement between the neighbours namely petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant. So considering the circumstances, this Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 can be invoked to quash the proceedings as an exceptional case to promote harmony that has been restored between the neighbours on account of the settlement which was effected due to intervention of respectable persons like panchayat President etc. So this petition is allowed and further proceeding in Crime No.2045/13 of Kundara police station against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court to be informed to the concerned police station
Crl.M.C.No.5480 of 2013 6
for necessary further action in this regard.
**Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.**
cl
/true copy/
P.S to Judge
