Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE1T DAY OF APRIL201411TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1358 of 2014 ---------------------------------- C.C.NO. 150/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNOOR ------------------ PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO3 -------------------------------------------------- 1. FATHAH M, AGED26YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, MATTUKARATHY HOUSE, MADAYI AMSOM, MUTTAM, KANNUR.
2. ABDULLA K., AGED23YEARS, S/O. HASHIM, KOVVAPURATHU HOUSE, MADAYI AMSOM, VELLACHAL, KANNUR.
3. FAISAL.M.P, AGED26YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, MEETHALEPURAYIL, MADAYI AMSOM, VELLACHAL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. JOBI GOERGE, S/O. VAKKACHAN, NILAKKAL PALLIKKAL HOUSE, ALAKKODU AMSOM, UDAYAGIRI - 671 046. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0104-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. Crl.MC.No. 1358 of 2014 ---------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ------------------------------------------ ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR WITH STATEMENT OF THE2D RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.1035/2012 OF THE PAZHAYANGADI POLICE. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT WITH THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.1035/2012 WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO. 150/2013 ON THE FILE OF JFCM COURT, PAYYANNUR. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd. K. Ramakrishnan, J.
============================== Crl.M.C.No.1358 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 01st April, 2014. ORDER
This is an application filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.150/13 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannoor, 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 petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.150/13 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannoor. The case was originated on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as de facto complainant alleging offences under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and on that basis, Annexure A1 First Information Report was registered as Crime No.1035/12 alleging above offences. After investigation, Annexure A2 final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.150/13 and that is pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannoor. The matter has been now settled between the parties. The incident occurred due to some misunderstanding Crl.M.C.No.1358 of 2014 :
2. : between the petitioners and the de facto complainant which has been now resolved due to the intervention of mediators. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case in view of the settlement. So, they have no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief: To call for the records and quash the proceedings in Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 Final report in Crime No.1035/2012 of Pazhayangadi Police which is now pending as in C.C.No.150/2013 on the file of the JFCM Court, Payyannur in the interest of justice." 3. The second respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and they have no intention to proceed with the case and he had filed Annexure A3 affidavit to that effect. The Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court submitted that except this case, there is no other case against the petitioners and they have no criminal background but opposed the application.
5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as de facto Crl.M.C.No.1358 of 2014 :
3. : complainant, Annexure A1 First Information Report was registered as Crime No.1035/12 of Pazhayangadi Police Station and after investigation, Annexure A2 final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.150/13 and pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannoor. The matter has been settled between the parties which is evident from Annexure A3 affidavit filed by the de facto complainant. It is also mentioned that due to some misunderstanding that the incident occurred and now that has been resolved and he does not want to prosecute the case. In view of the settlement, even if the case is allowed to proceed with, conviction will not be possible as the de facto complainant or his witnesses will not support the case of the prosecution as it will only be a wastage of judicial time.
6. 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 Crl.M.C.No.1358 of 2014 :
4. : 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." 7. Considering the dictum laid down in the above Crl.M.C.No.1358 of 2014 :
5. : decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of mediators and no purpose will be served in allowing the prosecution to continue with the trial of the case as the de facto complainant or his witnesses will not support the case of the prosecution and conviction in such cases will be remote, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings as proceeding with the trial will only amount to wastage of judicial time. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.150/2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannoor (Crime No.1035/12 of Pazhayangadi Police Police Station) against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannoor, for necessary further action in this regard. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge