Visakh @ Sheik and Vishnu v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **THURSDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943** ## **CRL.MC NO. 3142 OF 2021** **CRIME NO.848/2018 OF Ochira Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1063/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** 1 VISAKH @ SHEIK, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. SUDHAKARAN, VALLOPALLIL HOUSE, KLAPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2 VISHNU, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. SUDHAKARAN, MUNDOLIL HOUSE, PERUMANTHAZHA MURI, KLAPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV K.RAKESH ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, OACHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690526. 3 BINDU, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. VINOD, PALLICKAMANNEL VEEDU, SRAYICADU, ALAPPADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690525. 4 VINOD, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. VIDHYADHARAN, PALLICKAMANNEL VEEDU, SRAYICADU, ALAPPADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, CRL.MC NO. 3142 OF 2021 -2- KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690525. BY ADV K.S.PRAVEEN SEETHA S., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 3142 OF 2021 -3- ## **ORDER** Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash further proceedings in C.C.No.1063/2018 arising out of Crime No.848/2018 of Ochira Police Station, pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagapally. 2. C.C. No.1063 /2018 has been registered against the Petitioners/Accused No.1&2 under Sections 341, 323, 354, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution allegation is that the Petitioners out of previous enemity blocked the motorcycle of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and first petitioner beat at the cheek of respondent No.2 with hand and pulled the Churidar of the 3[rd] respondent and thereby committed the offences mentioned above. Annexure A is the copy of the final report in Crime No.848/2018. 3. When the case came up for hearing it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter has been settled between the petitioners and CRL.MC NO. 3142 OF 2021 -4- the de facto complainant and his wife. Learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and his wife also reported that the matter has been settled between the parties and an affidavit duly signed by the de facto complainant and his wife are produced as Annexures B &C. 4. In the affidavit, signed by the de facto complainant and his wife, they have solemnly affirmed that dispute between the parties had been settled and further continuance of the prosecution is unnecessary. 5. The parties are neighbours. There is no public interest involved and the dispute is private in nature. 6. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012 10 SCC 303 : 2012 KHC 4530)** a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procesure, 1973 has held that criminal cases having civil flavour and arising from commercial, financial merchantile, civil, partnership, matrimony relating to dowry or family disputes where wrong is private or personal in nature can be quashed in CRL.MC NO. 3142 OF 2021 -5- view of the settlement between the parties. Paragraph 57 of the said decision is relevant in this context to be extracted which reads as follows :- “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 Section 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. 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 CRL.MC NO. 3142 OF 2021 -6- 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 CRL.MC NO. 3142 OF 2021 -7- proceeding.” 7. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the statement of the de facto complainant has been taken and he re-iterated the averments in the affidavit filed by him. So as a matter of fact the dispute between the parties are resolved and the continuance of the proceedings in the CC.1063/2018 would be a waste of time of the Court and ends of justice demands quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners. 8. In the result Crl.M.C is allowed and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1063/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally is hereby quashed. Sd/- **M.R.ANITHA JUDGE** vv CRL.MC NO. 3142 OF 2021 -8- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3142/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURE Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.848/2018 OF OACHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. Annexure B AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5.7.2021. Annexure C AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED, 5.7.2021.