Kerala High Court
Gopinathan. M vs State Of Kerala on 26 September, 2013
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/13TH PHALGUNA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1239 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CC 4215/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,
ERNAKULAM DATED 26-09-2013
------
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED IN C.C. NO. 4215/2013 :
-----------------------------------------
GOPINATHAN. M
S/O.LATE K.RAMANKUTTY MENON,
THEKKEMARAYIL HOUSE,
CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
SRI.PAUL C THOMAS
RESPONDENTS :
-----------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2. WIMCY, W/O.RAJESH,
CHERUKATTUVEEDU, PULLARDESOM ROAD,
PALLURUTHY RAMESWARAM VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 682 000.
ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED :
3. RAJESH, S/O. BABU, AGED 40 YEARS,
CHERUKATTU VEEDU, PULLARDESOM ROAD,
PULLURUTHY REMESWARAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.
ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 04/3/2014 IN
CRL.M.A. NO. 2186/2014.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN
R2 & ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.VIJAYAKUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
BP
Crl.MC.No. 1239 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A1. COPY OF THE FIR NO.1902/2013 DATED 13.9.13.
ANNEXURE A2. COPY OF THE CHARGE AND THE CONNECTED
DOCUMENTS COLLECTED BY THE PROSECUTION.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
K. Ramakrishnan, J.
==============================
Crl.M.C.No.1239 of 2014
==============================
Dated this, the 04th day of March, 2014.
O R D E R
This is an application filed by the accused in C.C.No.4215/13 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Ernkalulam, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that he is conducting an establishment by name M/s. Interlinks dealing with kitchen equipments and other items. The de facto complainant was a staff of that establishment. On 13.09.2013, was the day of his mother's birthday, so, he had a plan to take the mother to temple and share more time with the mother. But, the de facto complainant reported very late in the office and so he was little harsh with her for her late coming and he had warned her except that nothing transpired at that time. But, later, she filed a complaint against the petitioner on the basis of which Annexure A1, First Information Report was registered as Crime No.1902/13 originally alleging offences under Sections.341, 323, 354 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. Later, Section 354 of Indian Penal Code was deleted and Section 354A (i)
(iv) of Indian Penal Code was added and Annexure A2 final report was filed which was taken on file as C.C.No.4215/2013 on the file of Crl.M.C.No.1239 of 2014 : 2 : the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Ernkalulam. In the meantime, the matter has been settled between the parties. It is alleged in the First Information Statement that de facto complainant's husband was also assaulted in the incident. In fact, the allegations will not attract the offence and the matter has been settled between the parties. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case and since it is non-compoundable offence, it is not possible to file an application for compounding before the court below. So, petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records leading to Annexure A1, FIR and Annexure A2 charge sheet and may be pleased to quash Annexure A2 charge sheet in C.C.No.4215/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Ernakulam and allow this Criminal Miscellaneous Case."
3. Subsequently, the husband of the de facto complainant was also impleaded as additional third respondent and both the de facto complainant and her husband were represented by the Counsel and submitted that since the matter has been settled between the parties and they have no grievance against the petitioner now and they have no objection in quashing the proceedings. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor.
Crl.M.C.No.1239 of 2014 : 3 :
4. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent, Annexure A1 crime was registered as Crime No.1902/13 originally alleging offences under Sections.341, 323, 354 & 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. Only later, 354 of Indian Penal Code was deleted and Section.354A (i) (iv) was incorporated and the final report was filed. Even in the First Information Statement, the allegation was that since she came late, there was some altercation occurred between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and some gestures were shown and abused with obscene language. The exact obscene words used were not mentioned either in the First Information Statement or statement of the witnesses or in the final report filed as well. Now, the matter has been settled between the parties. Even as per the allegations, it cannot be said that it was done with any criminal intention, but, due to some provocation caused on account of some inconvenience caused to the petitioner on account of the late coming of the de facto complainant. Since the matter has been settled between the parties, no purpose will be served by allowing the prosecution to continue as well as neither the de facto complainant or her husband or other witnesses are going to support the case of the prosecution. Crl.M.C.No.1239 of 2014 : 4 : The possibility of conviction is also removed in such circumstances.
5. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)], 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.1239 of 2014 : 5 : 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."
6. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the de facto complainant, her husband and the petitioner and there is no possibility of any conviction if the prosecution is allowed to continue in view of the settlement, allowing the prosecution to continue will only be a mere wastage of judicial time, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings.
So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.4215/13 (Crime No.1902/2013 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Ernakulam, against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for necessary further action.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge