Kerala High Court
Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2014
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/18TH CHAITHRA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 2010 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
SC 420/2011 of SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
-------------------
1. MATHEW, AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O.NINAN, THEKKATTIL HOUSE, KUNNAM MURI,
KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-686510.
2. SAMUEL, AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.NINAN, THEKKATTIL HOUSE, KUNNAM MURI,
KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-686510.
3. SHEFEEK, AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.SALIM, KAVUMKAL HOUSE, KUNNAM MURI
KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-686510.
4. BINUKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, MANGATTUKUNNEL HOUSE,
KUNNAM MURI, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-686510.
BY ADVS.SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY
SMT.ANU GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
(CRIME NO.201/2009 OF VECHUCHIRA POLICE STATION
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT).
2. ANISHKUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.VARGHESE, POOVAKKIDA HOUSE, KUNNAM MURI,
CHATHANTHARA P.O., KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-686510.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA
R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
BP
Crl.MC.No. 2010 of 2014 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO. 201/2009 OF
VECHUCHIRA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF FINAL REPORT (CHARGE SHEET) OF
SC NO. 420/2011 OF SESSIONS COURT
PATHANAMTHITTA.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
K. Ramakrishnan, J.
==============================
Crl.M.C.No.2010 of 2014
==============================
Dated this, the 08th day of April, 2014.
O R D E R
This is an application filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C.No.420/11 pending before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, 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 4 in S.C.No.420/11 on the file of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta which originated on the basis of Crime No.201/09 of Vechuchira Police Station registered on the basis of a statement given by the de facto complainant who is shown as second respondent herein alleging offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(ii), 308, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and thereafter, it was committed to the Court of Sessions and now pending as S.C.No.420/11 before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. In the meantime, the matter has been settled between the parties. They are neighbours and on account of the settlement, their relationship has been restored. According Crl.M.C.No.2010 of 2014 : 2 : to the petitioner, in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they could not compound the case before the court below. So, they have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records relating to Annexure A2 charge in SC.No.420/2011 pending before the Sessions Court Pathanamthitta initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.201/09 of Vechuchira Police station and to quash the charge and all further proceedings in SC No.420/2011 pending before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in the interest of justice."
3. The second respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties on account of the intervention of mediators and friends and their relationship has been restored and they are nieghbours and in view of the settlement, they do not want to prosecute the case. They have also filed affidavit stating these facts. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction and so he prayed for allowing the application.
4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor on Crl.M.C.No.2010 of 2014 : 3 : instructions, as directed by this court submitted that, there is no other case against the petitioner and they have no criminal background but opposed the application on the ground that Section 308 of Indian Penal Code has been incorporated.
5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are the accused in S.C.No.420/11 of Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. Crime No.201/09 was registered on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(ii), 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny and that court has committed the case to the Court of Sessions and after committal, it was taken on file as S.C.No.420/11 and it is pending before Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The matter has been now settled between the parties. Though Section 308 of Indian Penal Code has been incorporated, there is no injury caused to the de facto complainant. However, it is stated in the affidavit that they are neighbours and the matter has been settled due to the intervention of local people, friends and relatives and on account of the settlement, their original relationship has been Crl.M.C.No.2010 of 2014 : 4 : restored. In view of the settlement, even if the case is allowed to proceed, no purpose will be served as they will not support the case of the prosecution and possibility of conviction will be remote and the exercise will only be a wastage of judicial time as well.
6. Further, in the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (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 Crl.M.C.No.2010 of 2014 : 5 : 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. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision also and considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and no public interest is involved and as it is not a case of offence affecting the society at large and in view of the settlement, the original relationship has been restored between the parties and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as conviction will be remote and it will be wastage of judicial Crl.M.C.No.2010 of 2014 : 6 : time, this Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement and restoration of relationship between the parties and the pendency of this case will not be a hurdle for the same.
8. So, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in S.C.No.420/11 (Crime No.201/09 of Vechuchira police station) pending before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge