Vinod C.S. and RadhaKrishnan v. State of Kerala and Maniyan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/29TH PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1622 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 126/2012 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **.......** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:** **-------------------------------------------------** ## **1. VINOD C.S., AGED 42 YEARS,** **S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, APARTMENT NO.5-C, SHYLA MANNER, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **2. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 53 YEARS,** **S/O.S. KRISHNA PILLAI, APARTMENT NO.3-A, SHYLA MANNER, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE, SMT.MINI GOPINATH.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** ## **3. MANIYAN, S/O.KUNJAN,** - **NELLIVILA VEEDU, NEAR ARR PUBLIC SCHOOL, KACHANI, PEROORKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA. R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.P.BLESSY MOL.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1622 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.126/2012 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 12/12/2013 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER APARTMENT OWNERS WITH SRI.RAMAN PILLAI.** **ANNEXURE III COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 08/02/2014 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1622 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of March, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the accused in Crime No.126/2012 of Museum Police Station, for quashing further proceedings thereon, on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties 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 and 2 in Crime No.126/2012 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which was registered on the basis of a complaint given by the 3[rd] respondent, alleging offences under Section 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that on 27.01.2012 the petitioners have abused the defactocomplainant, removed the articles belonging to the defacto- Crl.M.C. No.1622 of 2014 2 complainant who belongs to Scheduled Caste and working as Security guard in the apartment, in which the petitioners are residing by calling his caste name and prevented him from doing his employment in that flat as security and declared that they will not allow him to do his work and thereby they have committed the above said offence. In respect of this incident, there were other litigations also, pending before the Consumer Redressal Forum and other Civil Courts and due to the intervention of well-wishers, all the cases have been settled. The 3[rd] respondent has no intention to proceed with this case also, in view of the fact that, the mis-understanding has been resolved and he has been permitted to work in the flat in an amicable manner. Since it is in the crime stage, neither the police nor the court will allow compounding. Further the offences are non-compoundable in nature as well and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case. So, the petitioners have no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking Crl.M.C. No.1622 of 2014 3 ## following relief: “Hence it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this criminal miscellaneous case and quash Annexure-I proceedings Crime No.126/2012 of Museum Police Station, pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram.” 3. The 3[rd] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties and good relationship has been restored on account of the settlement. So, he does not want to proceed with the prosecution and he had also filed Annexure-3 affidavit stating these facts. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions as directed by this court submitted that, there is another case also pending against the first petitioner apart from this case and opposed the application. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the other case mentioned against the first petitioner is also settled and they have filed Crl.M.C.No.1622/2014 to quash that proceedings, which is also pending before this court and coming up for hearing today. Crl.M.C. No.1622 of 2014 4 6. It is an admitted fact that, the 3[rd] respondent is working as a security guard in the flat in which the petitioners are residing. It is true that, there was some misunderstanding arose between the 3[rd] respondent and the petitioners and other residents of the complex, regarding the continuance of the 3[rd] respondent, as security in that complex and the cases mentioned above have arisen on account of that mis-understanding. Apart from this case, there are other cases arose between the flat owners and the builder and all those cases were settled between the parties, evidenced by Annexure-2 agreement. It is true that, the offence alleged is of grave nature and is covered by a special statute, which has been enacted to protect the interest of persons belonging to that category of persons. But at the same time, if the incident happened on account of some mis-understanding and those mis-understanding has been resolved due to settlement and both parties have restored their relationship and want to have smooth and Crl.M.C. No.1622 of 2014 5 happy atmosphere and living situation in the complex where they are living, then the pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for promoting such aspect, especially when the person affected had himself come before this court and stated that, it was due to some mis-understanding that the cases have been filed and that words of the victim have to be honoured for the purpose of promoting the settlement that has been arrived at, which will promote harmony in the complex, where the petitioners are living and the 3[rd] respondent is working as a security. 7. 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 Crl.M.C. No.1622 of 2014 6 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 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 and on account of the settlement, the relationship has been restored and peaceful Crl.M.C. No.1622 of 2014 7 atmosphere has been brought among the residents of the residential complex, where the petitioners are residing and the 3[rd] respondent is working as security. Taking this an exceptional case, though the offence alleged is covered by a special statute intended to protect the interest of persons belonging to that category of persons mentioned in the statute, this court feels that the power under Section 482 of the ‘Code’ has to be invoked to quash the proceedings, as no purpose will be served by allowing the case to continue, in view of the settlement, as even the defacto-complainant will not co-operate with the investigation and if ultimately final report is filed, he will not support the prosecution at the time of trial as well. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.126/2012 of Museum Police Station, filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Crl.M.C. No.1622 of 2014 8 Thiruvananthapuram, to be communicated to Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for taking necessary further action in this regard. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss