Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE5H DAY OF AUGUST201414TH SRAVANA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 3113 of 2014 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 780/2012 OF RAJAKKADU POLICE STATION , IDUKKI DISTRICT --------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED1AND2 ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJI,AGED45YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, THALIYACHIRA HOUSE, RAJAKUMARI KARA, RAJAKUMARI VILLAGE.
2. P.V. SINGRAJ,AGED53YEARS, S/O. VELLACHAMI, PUTHUPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAMPADANPARA P.O., PUTHUKKADU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 301 (CRIME NO. 780/2012 OF RAJAKKADU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT).
2. GEORGE, AGED56YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, KOCHUNIRAVATHU HOUSE, RAJAKUMARY, IDUKKI. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0508-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts CRMC.NO.3113/2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED2611/2012 IN CRIME NO.780/2012 OF RAJAKKADU POLICE STATION. ANNEX II NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT DATED0606/2014 SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K. Ramakrishnan, J.
============================== Crl.M.C.No.3113 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 05th day of August, 2014. ORDER
This is an application filed by the petitioners who are accused in Crime No.780/12 of Rajakkadu Police Station to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 & 2 in Annexure I Crime No.780/2012 of Rajakkadu Police Station alleging offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 341, 324, 188, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that, on 25.11.2012 at about 12 noon, the accused persons criminally trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant in violation of the injunction order passed by Munsiff's Court, Devikulam and wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and abused him with obscene languages and with an intention to commit culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, inflicted injuries with chopper, stick and stone and thereby, they have committed the above said offences. The matter has Crl.M.C.No.3113 of 2014 :
2. : been settled between the parties due to the intervention of elders of the family of both parties and also prominent members of the society. Further, they were neighbours and close relatives as well. The incident happened due to some sudden provocation and misunderstanding. Now, on account of the settlement, their relationship has been restored. So, the de facto complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners any longer. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well. Since some of the offences alleged are non compoundable in nature, they could not file the application before the court below. So, the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief: "To quash all further proceedings in Crime No.780/2012 of Rajakkadu Police Station, Idukki District, as it is an abuse of process of court." 3. Second respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of elders and they are relatives and neighbours as well. On account of the settlement, he does not want to prosecute the petitioners. He had filed an affidavit stating these facts as well. Crl.M.C.No.3113 of 2014 :
3. :
4. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no purpose in continuing with the case as no conviction will be possible and in fact, on account of the settlement, the relationship between the petitioners and the de facto complainant has been restored to the original position and he prayed for allowing the application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court, submitted that, there is no other case against the petitioners, but, opposed the application on the ground that grave offences have been incorporated.
6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent, Annexure I First Information Report was registered as Crime No.780/12 of Rajagad Police Station alleging offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 341, 324, 188, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the first petitioner and two identifiable persons. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation has been completed and the present petitioners alone were charge sheeted and final report has been submitted before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly. Now, the matter has been settled between the parties. It is alleged in Crl.M.C.No.3113 of 2014 :
4. : the petition as well as in the affidavit filed by the de facto complainant that the parties are relatives and neighbours and the matter has been settled due to the intervention of well wishers and elder members of the family of both parties and also respectable persons of the locality and in fact, it was a private dispute which happened due to some misunderstanding and sudden provocation of certain act that happened at that time. Now, they have realized the folly and decided to restore their relationship. Now, harmony has been brought in, in the family on account of the settlement. So, they do not want to proceed with the case. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction as well as neither the de facto complainant nor his witnesses will support the case of the prosecution. Further, it cannot be said to be a matter of public interest as well, as it is a dispute between two individuals caused on account of some property dispute in respect of which civil suits were also filed and both the Counsels submitted that, on account of the settlement, the civil suit has also compromised.
7. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT108(SC)], it has been observed that Crl.M.C.No.3113 of 2014 :
5. : in a case where private dispute between family members have resulted in registration of crime and filing of final report and if the matter has been settled between the parties on account of the intervention of well wishers of both parties and the original relationship has been restored, then, even if non compoundable offences have been incorporated, court must allow the quashing of proceedings invoking the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to honour the settlement and restoration of harmony in the family.
8. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that it is a private dispute between family members and neighbours which resulted in registration of crime and filing of final report and since the matter has been settled between the parties and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case 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 can be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement and harmony that has been restored in the family of both the parties and the pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same. Crl.M.C.No.3113 of 2014 :
6. : So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.780/12 of Rajakkadu Police Station now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order the concerned court immediately. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge