Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 9TH BHADRA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 2538 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 226/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PAYYANNUR, KANNUR CRIME NO.1510/2018 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 DHEERAJ. A AGED 22 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, ARUMADI HOUSE, KANDOTH, KIZHAKKEKOVVAL P.O., VELLUR AMSOM, PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 2 JAMSHEED.N.K. AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. JALEEL, JASIRA MANZIL, VATTAKOVVAL, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 3 AMAL.T., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.RAVINDRAN, THAYAMBATH HOUSE, NEAR MUTHAPPAN TEMPLE, THAYINERI, PAYYANUR AMSOM, PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADVS. O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.JOSE ANTONY SRI.S.SHIV SHANKAR
RESPONDENTS/STATE & INJURED: 1 STATE OF KERALA (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION , CRIME NO.1510/2018) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 2 AKASH BHASKARAN AGED 21 YEARS S/O. BHASKARAN, DEEPTHI HOUSE, -2- CHALAKODE, KOORKARA, KOROM AMSOM, KOROM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 307 3 DRISHYA DINESHAN S/O. DINESHAN, POTHERA VALAPPIL HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 502 SRI ARAVIND MATHEW, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -3-
ORDER
This Crl.M.C has been filed by the petitioners, who are accused in crime No.1510/2018 of Payyannur police station, seeking to quash Annexure A3 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.861/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur which was registered under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution allegation is that on 21.12.2015 at
about 11.45 a.m., when the respondents 2 and 3 and other workers of KSU in Payyannur College was leading a procession in protest of an incident occurred inside the college campus, the accused who are the workers of SFI in the college obstructed the procession and assaulted the respondent No.2 with hands, causing minor and simple injuries and the 3rd respondent fell down during the commotion and thereby petitioners committed the above offence.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the first respondent/State, and also the counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
4. According to the petitioners, the crime has been -4-
registered under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter has been settled between the parties. The defacto complainant and the other injured had filed separate affidavits duly sworn in by them. Annexure A4 and A5 are the affidavits sworn in by the defacto complainant and the other injured.
5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant also submitted that the dispute between the parties have been amicably settled and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction would
submit that the case has been amicably settled with the petitioners. In Annexure A4 and A5 affidavits sworn in by the defacto complainant/second and third respondents, they have categorically stated that they have settled the matter with the petitioners pending before the Family Court as CC.No.861/2019 pending before JFCM, Payyannur.
7. 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 Procedure, 1973 has held that criminal cases -5-
having civil flavour and arising from criminal financial merchantile, civil, partnership, matrimony relating to dowry or family disputes where wrong is private or personal in nature can be quashed in 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
-6-
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 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
-7- 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 proceeding.”
8. It has come out from the affidavit sworn in by the
defacto complainant and the other injured and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor that matter has been amicably settled between the parties. No public interest is involved and the issue is purely private in nature. So there is no impediment in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners and further continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners also will not serve any
purpose. Therefore, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to quash Annexure A3 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.861/2019 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed. Sd/- M.R.ANITHA JUDGE nkr -8- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2538/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 21.12.2018 ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1510/2018 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET DATED 29.12.2018 IN CRIME NO.1510/2018 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-A4 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.04.2021 SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A5 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.04.2021 SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCIDENT REGISTER-CUM-
WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 25.12.2018 IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE RMO, PRIYADARSHINI HOSPITAL, PAYYANNUR ANNEXURE-A7 TRUE COPY OFTHE ACCIDENT REGISTER-CUM- WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 25.12.2018 IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE RMO, PRIYADARSHINI HOSPITAL, PAYYANUR ANNEXURE-A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.01.2021 OF M/S. KARTIK ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS, WORLI, MUMBAI REQUIRING 1ST PETITIONER TO PRODUCE POLICE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE