Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE21T DAY OF FEBRUARY20142ND PHALGUNA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1226 of 2014 --------------------------- CRIME NO. 407/2013 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION , IDUKKI DISTRICT ... PETITIONER(S):ACCUSED1& 2: ------------------------------------------------- 1. MOBIN, S/O.MOHANAN, KAVALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANAKKUZHY, MATTUKKATTAKARA, AYYAPPANCOVIL VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2. BIBIN, S/O.KOCHUMON, KOLLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MATTUKKATTA KARA, AYYAPPANCOVIL VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT(S): ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. MATHEW JOSEPH @ JOMON,AGED27YEARS, S/O.RAJU, THURAVATHUKAL HOUSE, CHAPPATHUKARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, IDUKKI-685 507. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2102-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Crl.MC.No. 1226 of 2014 ----------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE-I.TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.407/2013 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-II.TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT DATED206/2013. ANNEXURE-III.COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------- N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------ Crl.M.C.No. 1226 of 2014 ---------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2014. ORDER
------------ This is an application filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.407/2013 of Upputhara Police Station in Idukki District, on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused Nos.1and 2 in Crime No.407/13 of Upputhara Police Station, which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent alleging offences under Sections 447, 324, 294(b) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent were settled out of Court and the second respondent has no intention to continue with the prosecution. They are neighbours and harmony between them are restored on account of the settlement arrived due to the intervention of the mediators and well wishers. There is no possibility of conviction being entered even if ultimately, the final report is being filed, on account of the settlement. Since the Investigating Officer did not accept the settlement and close the crime file, they have no option but to approach this Court to seek the following reliefs. " It is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash Annexure-I First Information Report and all further proceedings pursuant to the same, to secure Crl.M.C.No. 1226 of 2014 2 the ends of justice." 3. The 2nd respondent appeared through the counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and he has no objection in quashing all proceedings. The second respondent also filed an affidavit stating these facts. On instructions as directed by this Court, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that except this case there is no other case against the petitioners and it was a private dispute between the neighbours, which resulted in the registration of the crime.
4. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent, Annexure A crime was registered as Crime No. 407/2013 of Upputhara Police Station against the petitioner alleging offences u/s 443, 324, 294(b), r/w 34 IPC. The investigation is in the preliminary stage. After the registration of crime, due to the intervention of the mediators, the matter has been settled between the defacto complainant and the petitioners. Since the police is not closing the file, they approached this Court to quash proceedings.
5. Normally, this Court, will not interfere and quash the proceedings at the crime stage, unless it is satisfied that even on the basis of the allegations made in the First Information Statement no criminal offences is made out. But in this case, the matter has been settled between the parties. They are neighbours as well. In the decision in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab 2012(4) KLT Crl.M.C.No. 1226 of 2014 3 108 (SC) the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows: "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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. 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 case, 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 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." Crl.M.C.No. 1226 of 2014 4 6. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and they are neighbours and the harmony has been restored between them and now they are living in cordial relationship and also in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, there is no possibility of filling a final report for the offences alleged against the petitioners as the defacto complainant is not going to co-operate with the investigating agency, I feel that, this is a fit case, where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to save judicial time as well as the time of Investigating agency in this matter . So the application is allowed, and further proceedings in Crime No. 407/2013 of Upputhara Police Station against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, namely, Judicial First Class Magistrate Peerumedu to inform the concerned police station for the further necessary action in this regard. K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE jm/ Crl.M.C.No. 1226 of 2014 5