Kerala High Court
Krepal vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2014
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/6TH CHAITHRA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 1767 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
SC.NO. 115/2013 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, CHENGANNUR
CRIME NO. 639/2012 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
---------------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED A1-A2 :
---------------------------------------------------
1. KREPAL,S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 21 YEARS,
KUZHIYENATHU VEEDU, PULYOOR MURI,
PULYOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
2. RATHEESH, S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR,AGED 27 YEARS,
CHERUKARA THEKKETHIL VEEDU, PULYOOR MURI,
PULYOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :
---------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. SUJITHKUMAR,S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR,AGED 31 YEARS,
KARUNA NIVAS, PULYOOR MURI,
PULYOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 121.
3. RENJITH, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 26 YEARS,
AMBADI KIZHAKEETHIL, PULYOOR MURI,
PULYOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 121.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P.
R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
Crl.MC.No. 1767 of 2014 ()
-------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
--------------------------------------------
ANNEX-A. A PHOTO COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.639/2012 OF
CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE
sts
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
----------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 1767 of 2014-B
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th March, 2014
O R D E R
This is an application filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. 115/2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused in S.C.115/2013 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur. A case was registered as Crime No. 639/2012 of Chengannur Police Station on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant i.e. 2nd respondent against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 323, 324, 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Annexure - A final report was Crl.M.C. No. 1767 of 2014-B 2 filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur and the learned Magistrate had committed the case to the Court of Sessions and after committal, the Sessions Court, Alppuzha has taken cognizance of this case as S.C. 115/2013 and thereafter made over to the Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur for disposal.
3. Now the petitioners and the defacto complainant and other injured in the case have settled the dispute and both the de facto complainant and the injured do not want to prosecute the case. They were neighbours and on account of the settlement, harmony has been restored between them. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case in view of the settlement. Since some of the offences are non- compoundable in nature, they cannot apply before the court below for compounding the case. So they have Crl.M.C. No. 1767 of 2014-B 3 no option except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"To quash Annexure -a charge sheet in Crime No. 639/2012 of Chengannur Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to S.C. 115/2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur against the petitioners and
ii) Grant such other relief to the petitioners as this Honourable Court thinks just and proper to meet the ends of justice in this case".
4. The respondents 2 and 3, who are the de facto complainant and other injured in the case appeared through counsel and submitted that they have settled the matter due to the intervention of mediators and local people and they also filed affidavits stating these facts and on account of the settlement earlier friendship has been restored between the parties.
5. Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well.
6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court, Crl.M.C. No. 1767 of 2014-B 4 submitted that there is no other case pending against the petitioners and they have no criminal background. But considering the fact that the offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code has been committed, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings and opposed the application.
7. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by 2nd respondent as de facto complainant, a case was registered as Crime No. 639/2012 of Chengannur Police Station against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 323, 324, and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation Annexure 1 final report has been filed and after committal it was taken on file as S.C. 115/2013 by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha and now pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur.
Crl.M.C. No. 1767 of 2014-B 5
8. It is also an admitted fact that the matter has been now settled between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3, who are the two injured persons in the case. It is true that the offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code has been incorporated, it is a grave offence. But it cannot be said that it is an incident happened affecting the public at large. But it is a private dispute that resulted in the incident and registration of the crime.
9. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and their relationship has been restored on account of the settlement due to intervention of mediators and important personalities in the locality.
10. 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 Crl.M.C. No. 1767 of 2014-B 6 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 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."
Crl.M.C. No. 1767 of 2014-B 7
11. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and the de facto complainant and other injured do not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case and the possibility of conviction is remote in such circumstances. It cannot be said to be an incident affecting the public at large as well. The earlier relationship between the parties has been restored on account of the settlement.
12. So considering the circumstances, this Court feels that this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement and harmony that has been restored between the parties on account of the settlement. Crl.M.C. No. 1767 of 2014-B 8 So the application is allowed and further proceedings in S.C.No.115/2013 (Crime No. 639/2012 Chengannur Police Station) of Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this Order to the concerned Court immediately for necessary further action.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
rka /true copy/