VIPIN RAJ & DEEPU @ UNNI v. STATE OF KERALA & VISHNU @ PONNOOS

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/22ND SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3370 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 401/2013 OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **........** ## **PETITIONERS/A1 & A2:** **---------------------------------** **1. VIPIN RAJ, AGED 26 YEARS, VAYALTHITTA VEEDU, AZHOOR, CHIRAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. DEEPU @ UNNI, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.DILEEP, VAYALTHITTA VEEDU, AZHOOR, CHIRAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.** ## **2. VISHNU @ PONNOOS, AGED 18 YEARS,** **S/O.BABU, KARTHIKA BHAVAN, NEAR VARUVILAKAM TEMPLE, AZHOOR DESOM, AZHOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 504.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3370 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO:401/2013 OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-B NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SIGNED OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3370 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of August, 2013.** ## **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 accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.401/2013 of Chirayinkil Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 326 and 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings against the petitioners in Annexure A FIR in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that, due to enmity that the de facto complainant questioned the petitioners from uttering obscene words in public, the accused persons on 16.6.2013 at 2.00 p.m. trespassed into Laska Arts and Sports Club and then A1 using an iron stick hit the de facto complainant on the right hand, and A1 **Crl.M.C.No.3370 of 2013** 2 thereafter handed over the iron stick to A2. A1 then using a chopper hit on the nose of the de facto complainant by which he sustained nasal bone fracture. A2 using the iron stick threatened the persons present in the library who tried to prevent the attack. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court, as evident from Annexure B affidavit sworn in by the 2[nd] respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is **Crl.M.C.No.3370 of 2013** 3 the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and he has no grievance against them. 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, 324, 326 and 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 the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, it **Crl.M.C.No.3370 of 2013** 4 appears to me that the de facto complainant has 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 purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercandile, civil, partnership or such like **Crl.M.C.No.3370 of 2013** 5 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 the net result would be sheer waste of judicial 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.3370 of 2013** time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions 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 - A FIR and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.401/2013 of Chirayinkil Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge