VIPIN and ANU RAJ v. STATE OF KERALA and Jayakumari and Basheerjaan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/5TH BHADRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4911 of 2014** **----------------------------------** ## **CC 1465/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA CRIME NO. 543/2008 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM** **---------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSD A2 AND 3:** **--------------------------------------------------** ## **1. VIPIN, AGED 30 YEARS,** - **S/O.VIJAYAN, VIDYA BHAVANAM, EAST OF VETTIKAD TEMPLE AND NORTH TO ULLADISSERI KAAVU, KADAPPA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. ANU RAJ, AGED 29 YEARS,** - **S/O.SOMARAJAN, PUTHEN VEETTIL VADAKKATHIL, NORTH TO ULLADISSERI KAAVU, KADAPPA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.DILEEP SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. JAYAKUMARI, AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.RAJAMMA, MADATHIL VEEDU, MEMANA MURY OACHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. BASHEERJAAN, AGED 56 YEARS** - **S/O.UDUMAN KANNU, KANJIRAM VILA VEEDU NORTH TO EDAVANASSERRY MOSQUE, KADAPPA MURY MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 4911 of 2014** ## **---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A- A TRUE COPY OF F.I.R IN CRIME NO.543/2008 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **ANNEXURE B- A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.543/2008 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **ANNEXURE C- A TRUE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OF THE 1ST ACCUSED IN CRIME NO.543/2008 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** **--------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4911 of 2014 ------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of August, 2014.** ## **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 petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No.1465 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.543 of 2008 of Sasthamcotta Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 506(i) r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-B final report/charge sheet in the above crime and all subsequent proceedings pursuant to the above calendar case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 4.9.2008 at 3 p.m., the petitioners/accused along with 1[st] accused entered into the office room of the 2[nd] respondent/ de facto complainant, who is a teacher and a lady, used **Crl.M.C.No.4911 of 2014** 2 obscene words against her and thereafter threatened to cause death of the 3[rd] respondent/injured, while interfered in the incident and thereby committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute, which was the subject matter of the above case, as per the affidavits sworn into by the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and victim **Crl.M.C.No.4911 of 2014** 3 respectively, do not intends to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against the petitioners. 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 offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 452, 294 (b), 506(i) r/w 34 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by **Crl.M.C.No.4911 of 2014** 4 the counsel for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, it appears to me that the de facto complainant and the victim have no further grievance against the petitioners/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 Gian Singh's 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the **Crl.M.C.No.4911 of 2014** 5 purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from 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. According to me, 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.4911 of 2014** 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 decision cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-B final report/charge sheet in Crime No.543 of 2008 of Sasthamcotta Police Station and all subsequent proceedings pending against the petitioners pursuant to C.C.No.1465 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge