IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE28H DAY OF MARCH20147TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1345 of 2014 () --------------------------- SC.NO.30/2011 OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CRIME NO. 285/2009 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION , THRISSUR DISTRICT ------------------------------ PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------------------------ SHIJEESH, AGED32YEARS, S/O.KARAPPAN, THERVEETTIL, VENGIDANGU VILLAGE, PADUR DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.285/2009 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT).
2. SUBRAMANIAN,AGED46YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MANGADI HOUSE, MULLASSERY DESOM, MULLASSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2803-2014, ALONG WITH CRMC.NO. 1347 OF2014 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts Crl.MC.No. 1345 of 2014 () ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: --------------------------------------------- ANNEX-I. COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN SC NO.30/2011. ANNEX-II. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED091/2014 SWORN BY THE2D RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K. Ramakrishnan, J.
============================== Crl.M.C.Nos.1347 & 1345 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 28th day of March, 2014. ORDER
These petitions were filed by the respective accused in S.C.No.933/10 and S.C.No.30/11 pending before Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Thrissur to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent in both the cases as de facto complainant, Pavaratty police registered a case as Crime No.285/09 of Pavaratty Police Station alleging offences under Sections 342, 323, 324, 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(iii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and after investigation, final report has been filed against the petitioners in both the cases. It was taken on file by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad and originally petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1347/14 alone appeared and the learned magistrate committed the case as against those persons to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court has taken cognizance of Crl.M.C.Nos.1345 & 1347 of 2014 :
2. : the case as S.C.No.933/10. Thereafter, petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1345/14 also appeared before the Committal Court and later, case against him was also committed to the Special Court trying the offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Special Court has taken cognizance of that accused as S.C.No.30/11 and both these cases are now pending before Principal Sessions Court, Thrissur. In the meantime, the matter was settled between the de facto complainant and petitioners in both the cases who are the accused in the case. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction being entered into against the petitioners. Since the offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not compoundable one, they have no option except to approach this court for quashing the proceedings. So, they have filed this petition seeking the following relief: "To quash all further proceedings in SC Nos.933/2010 & 30/2011 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Thrissur as it is an abuse of process of court." 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and earlier filed a statement stating that first Crl.M.C.Nos.1345 & 1347 of 2014 :
3. : accused has involved in Crime No.270/02 under Section 341, 323, 324 of Indian Penal Code, Crime No.341/04 under Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Crime No.153/08 under Section 7 and 8 of Kerala Gaming Act, Crime No.626/09 under Section 7 and 8 of Kerala Gaming Act and proceedings under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been initiated in the year 2002 and he is shown in the rowdy history sheet maintained in the Pavaratty police station. It is also mentioned that second accused is accused in Crime No.91/09 under Section 7 and 8 of Kerala Gaming Act, Crime No.153/08 under Section 7 and 8 of Kerala Gaming Act and Crime No.279/09 under Sections 280 and 337 of Indian Penal Code and third accused was accused in Crime No.175/12 under Section 15 of the Kerala Gaming Act, Crime No.37/02 under Sections 341, 323, 324 of Indian Penal Code, Crime No. 47/02 under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Crime No.911/13 under Section 15(C) of Abkari Act, Crime No.341/04 under section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Crime No.91/09 under Section 7 and 8 of Kerala Gaming Act and they are habitual offenders and so, this cannot be quashed. Subsequently, an additional report was Crl.M.C.Nos.1345 & 1347 of 2014 :
4. : filed in which it was mentioned that as against the first accused Crime No.341/04 was ended in acquittal and in Crime No.153/08, he pleaded guilty and he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in Crime No.626/09, he pleaded guilty and he was sentenced to pay fine and in Crime No.270/02 was compounded and he was acquitted and in Crime No.48/02 he was acquitted. Similarly, as regards second accused is concerned, in all the cases he had pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay fine alone. As against the third accused is concerned except Crime No.911/13 which was recently registered for offence under Section 15(C) of the Abkari Act, in all other cases, either ended in acquittal or he pleaded guilty and fine alone was imposed and the new case namely Crime No.911/13 final report has not been filed and it is only an offence under 15(C) of the Abkari Act which is only a minor offence.
4. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. Further, both these persons were working in the same school and there was some misunderstanding occurred and in that the incident happened and the crime was registered. Now, they Crl.M.C.Nos.1345 & 1347 of 2014 :
5. : have settled the issues and they are now working in the same school harmoniously on account of the settlement. The second respondent in both the cases appeared through Counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled and he does not want to proceed against the petitioners in both the cases and the dispute between them was resolved and harmony has been restored and they are now working together in the same school on account of the settlement.
5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by second respondent in both the cases, a crime was registered including offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and after investigation, final report was filed and the case against the accused persons namely the petitioners in both the cases were committed to the Sessions Court on two occasions and on the basis of the committal, the case against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1347/14 was taken on file as S.C.No.933/10 and case against the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1345/14 was taken on file as S.C.No.30/11 and both are now pending before Principles Sessions Court, Thrissur. It is also seen from the pleadings that the matter Crl.M.C.Nos.1345 & 1347 of 2014 :
6. : has been settled between the petitioners in both the cases and the de facto complainant who is shown as second respondent in both the cases. It is seen from the allegations in the final report that the incident itself happened from the school compound when there was some dispute arose between the petitioners in both the cases and the de facto complaint and it was on that basis, the crime was registered. Subsequently, the matter has been settled between the accused persons and the de facto complainant due to the intervention of the mediators and the school authorities and now, both of them are working in the same school without any difficulty on account of the settlement. It is true that the petitioners are not without any criminal background. They were shown as accused persons in several cases and in most of the cases they pleaded guilty and fine alone was imposed and in some of the cases they were acquitted as well. The only pending case against 3rd accused is an offence under Section 15(C) of the Abkari Act which is a minor offence. It is true that first accused is shown in the rowdy history list maintained in the pavaratty police station as well. Most of the cases alleged against the accused persons except the third accused were of Crl.M.C.Nos.1345 & 1347 of 2014 :
7. : the year 2002, 2004, 2008 and 2009. The prosecutor had no case that accused Nos.1 and 2 have involved in any other crime thereafter. Further, this case has happened from the school compound and on account of settlement, harmony has been restored between the accused persons and the de facto complainant and now they are working in the same school smoothly on account of the settlement.
6. It is true that the offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has to be viewed seriously as the enactment itself has been made for the purpose of protecting the communities mentioned therein as on account of their caste they are being exploited by upper caste people and in order to protect them from such exploitation, the special enactment has been enacted. But, at the same time, when the victim under the Act himself comes before the court and says that the matter has been settled between them on account of intervention of mediators and well wishers and on account of the settlement the misunderstanding between them has been resolved and now they are working smoothly in the school, then, the court must honour that words of the victim and that Crl.M.C.Nos.1345 & 1347 of 2014 :
8. : benefit must be given to the accused persons as pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the harmony that has been created between the two community people.
7. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT108(SC)], it is 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 Crl.M.C.Nos.1345 & 1347 of 2014 :
9. : 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." 8. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case in view of the settlement and harmony restored between the de facto complainant and the accused persons and possibility of conviction is remote and allowing the prosecution to continue in such circumstances will only be a wastage of judicial time, this court feels that the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement arrived at between the parties which resulted in harmony between two community people and smooth functioning in the Crl.M.C.Nos.1345 & 1347 of 2014 :
10. : school where they are working has been restored. So, the applications are allowed and further proceedings in S.C.Nos. 933/10 and 30/11 pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Thrissur as against petitioners in both the cases are quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately for necessary further action. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge