Kerala High Court
Vishnu vs The State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2014
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/16TH SRAVANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 3187 of 2014
----------------------------------
C.C.NO. 592/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
--------------
PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.S 1 TO 4 :
----------------------------------------------------------
1. VISHNU, AGED 22 YEARS,
S/O.SATHY, RESIDING AT KEEZHE THENGUVILA VEEDU,
KERALADITHYAPURAM, POWDIKONAM WARD,
ULIYAZHTHURA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. NIKHIL, AGED 20 YEARS,
S/O.ANILKUMAR, RESIDING AT KANIYAMKONATHU VEEDU,
MANNANTHALA WARD, MANNANTHALA, KANIYAMKONAM,
ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. AKHIL, AGED 21 YEARS,
S/O.ANILKUMAR, RESIDING AT KANIYAMKONATHU VEEDU,
MANNANTHALA WARD, MANNANTHALA, KANIYAMKONAM,
ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. ANANTHU, AGED 21 YEARS,
S/O.SURENDRAN, RESIDING AT SUKUMARA BHAVAN,
MANNANTHALA, KANIYAMKONAM, MANNANTHALA WARD,
ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
SRI.V.S.THOSHIN
RESPONDENTS / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 101.
2. BAIJU, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT POTTAYIL VEEDU,
MANNANTHALA WARD, ULLOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 101.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA
R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.BABU
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
Crl.MC.No. 3187 of 2014
-----------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT C.C.NO.592/12 PENDING
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE B: NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF COMPROMISE OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
=================
CRL.M.C.NO.3187 OF 2014
=====================
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2014
ORDER
---------
This is an application filed by the petitioners who are accused in CC.592/2012, on the file of the judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, to quash the proceedings as against them, in view of the settlement, under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that, petitioners were arrayed as accused numbers 1 to 4 in CC.592/2012, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, which originated on the basis of the crime registered as crime no.418/2012, of Mannanthala police station on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as defacto complainant against the petitioners alleging offences under section 294(b), 323, 341, 324 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The original relationship has been restored between them, and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case in view of the settlement. Further, since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they could not file the application before the court below. So the petitioners have no CRL.M.C.NO.3187 OF 2014 2 other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:-
"To call for the records in C.C.592/12 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram registered for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 324 and 34 IPC and quash Annexure A and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof in the exercise of the inherent powers of this court under sec. 482 of the Code in the interests of justice".
3. Second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled the parties and he does not want to prosecute the petitioners any more and he had filed an affidavit stating that fact.
4. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case and he prayed for allowing the application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, as directed by this court, submitted that the first petitioner is the accused in another case which is pending as CC.68/2013 of the same court and opposed the application on the ground that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.
6. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as defacto complainant, crime no,418/2012, of Mannanthala police station, was registered against the petitioners alleging offences under CRL.M.C.NO.3187 OF 2014 3 section 294(b), 323, 341, 324, r/w section 34 of Indian penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that after investigation, final report was filed, and now pending as CC.592/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. Now, the matter has been settled between the parties. It is true that the first petitioner is arrayed as sixth accused in CC.68/2013 pending before the same court, alleging offences under section 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 427, 447 and 506(1) of Indian Penal Code, and that matter was also settled between the parties and accused in that case have filed Crl.M.C.3192/2014 to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement. Except these two cases, he had not involved in any other crime even as per the prosecution case. Further none of the offences alleged are grave in nature as well. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction as neither the defacto complainant nor his witnesses will support the case of the prosecution. Further there is no public interest involved as even going by the allegations it is seen that the private dispute which resulted in registration of crime, which has now been settled. There is no political issue involved as well.
7. In the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2012(4) KLT 108 (SC), it has been held that, if a private dispute has been resulted in registration of crime and CRL.M.C.NO.3187 OF 2014 4 that has been settled between the parties and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case, then the court can invoke the power under section 482 of Code of criminal procedure to quash the proceedings even if non compoundable offences have been incorporated. The same view has been reiterated in the subsequent decision as well. Further in view of the decision of this court the offence under section 294(b) is not attracted. Then only non compoundable offence is section 324 of Indian Penal Code.
8. So considering the circumstances that the matter has been settled between the parties and they have no grave criminal antecedents and giving them an opportunity to reform must be the main concept of the courts especially when they want to reform, then the court must invoke the power under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings if the matter has been settled between the parties. So considering the circumstances, this court feels that, it is fit case, where the power under section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings, as continuance of this case will amount to wastage of judicial time and conviction in such cases will be remote.
So the application is allowed and further proceedings in CC.592/2012 (crime no.418/2012 of Mannanthala police CRL.M.C.NO.3187 OF 2014 5 station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV CRL.M.C.NO.3187 OF 2014 6