Kerala High Court
Vineeth vs State Of Kerala on 5 October, 2013
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
MONDAY,THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/17TH CHAITHRA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 1887 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CC.NO. 4147/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR
CRIME NO. 756/2013 OF MANGALAM DAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
--------------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
-------------------------------------
1. VINEETH,
S/O.DASAN, AGED 26 YEARS
CHAKKINGAL HOUSE, KORENCHIRA P.O.
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. ARUMUGHAM, S/O.VELLA, AGED 45 YEARS
MUKKASHANGANCHAL, AMBITTANTHARRISSU
KORENCHIRA P.O., ALATHUR TALUK.
3. BENNY,
S/O.STEPHEN, AGED 35 YEARS
NARIPILAVIN HOUSE, AMBITTANTHARRISSU
KORENCHIRA P.O., ALATHUR TALUK.
4. RASHEED,
S/O.ABBAS, AGED 33 YEARS
AMBITTANTHARRISSU, KORENCHIRA P.O.
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST.
5. ABDUL NAZAR,
S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 43 YEARS
RAHMATH MANZIL, VELAMPUZHA
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.BABY MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MANGALAM DAM POLICE STATION
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 001.
...2/-
Crl.MC.No. 1887 of 2014 () -2-
3. BAIJU,
S/O.DEVASSY, AGED 39 YEARS
PAREKATTIL HOUSE, PEECHI
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 653.
4. TONY
S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 23 YEARS
THOTTUNKAL HOUSE, MAROTTICHAL
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE P.
R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA KUMAR (MANGALAM)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...3/-
Crl.MC.No. 1887 of 2014 ()
-------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
-------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE-I. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 5/10/2013 IN CRIME
NO.756/2013 OF MANGALAM DAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE-II. TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 30/10/2013 IN
CRIME NO.756/2013 OF MANGALAM DAM POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
---------------------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
----------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 1887 of 2014
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th April, 2014
O R D E R
This is an application filed by the petitioners who are accused in C.C. 4147/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused in C.C.Nos. 4147/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur which was originated on the basis of the statement given by 3rd respondent against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is alleged in the petition that apart from defacto complainant, 4th respondent also sustained some injuries Crl.M.C. No. 1887 of 2014 2 and later the matter has been settled between the parties. Incident occurred due to some provocation caused on account of an accident occurred involving a tipper lorry driven by 3rd respondent. The matter has been now settled between the parties. Respondents 3 and 4 do not want to prosecute the case. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well in view of the settlement. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they cannot file an application before the concerned Court. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:
" To pass an order to quash annexure - II Final Report and all further proceedings against the petitiners in C.C.No.4147/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur".
4. Respondents 3 and 4 appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not want to prosecute the case in Crl.M.C. No. 1887 of 2014 3 view of the settlement. They have also stated that they have filed Crl.M.A. 2910/2014 to record compounding.
5. The counsel for petitioner also submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case. So they prayed for allowing the application.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court submitted that 5th petitioner is involved in Crime No. 947/2013 under Sections 143, 147, 188 and 283 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code of Mangal Dam Police Station and opposed the application.
7. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, that was a case registered in connection with some political procession that has been taken out in protest against some governing policy which according to the political party is against public interest.
8. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the 3rd respondent, a crime was Crl.M.C. No. 1887 of 2014 4 registered as Crime No. 756/2013 of Mangal Dam Police Station against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 147, 148 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and after investigation final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.4147/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur and it is pending before that Court. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. They have filed Crl.M.A.2190/2014 for recording compounding. Since offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 are non-compoundable in nature and compounding as such cannot be recorded but that can be taken into consideration for considering the question as to whether the case against the petitioners can be quashed or not. In the compounding petition, they have stated that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not want to prosecute the petitioners. Further it is seen from the final report that the incident occurred on account of Crl.M.C. No. 1887 of 2014 5 sudden provocation caused in the mob when the tipper lorry hit against a lady who died in the incident. It is true that people are not expected to take law into their hands but sometimes emotions make them to do such things. That has been now considered by the respondents and they have decided to forgive them as well. No purpose will be served on account of the settlement because none of the witnesses will support the case of the prosecution. Further the nature of injury sustained and loss caused also are not grave. Merely because 5th petitioner had involved in some crime which was registered in respect of conducting some procession along with political party workers is not a ground to come to a conclusion that he is a habitual offender and this case cannot be quashed on account of that fact.
9. 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 Crl.M.C. No. 1887 of 2014 6 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 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 Crl.M.C. No. 1887 of 2014 7 its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
10. 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 due to the intervention of mediators and good relationship has been restored between the parties and possibility of conviction is remote in view of the settlement, this Court feels that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case as it will amount to wastage of judicial time alone and it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked to quash the proceeding.
10. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No. 4147/2013 (Crime No. 756/2013 of Mangalam Dam Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for further action immediately.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
rka /true copy/ P.S. To Judge.