Mithun Fernadus vs Kiran. V on 30 April, 2014

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Mithun Fernadus vs Kiran. V on 30 April, 2014

This is an application filed by the sole accused in CC.No.495 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Attingal to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code).

2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was arrayed as accused in Crime No.506 of 2008 of Attingal police station on the basis of a statement given by the first respondent as defacto complainant alleging offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act in respect of an incident happened while they were students in Government Polytechnic College, Attingal. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as CC.No.495 of 2009 and pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. Now the matter was settled between the parties. On account of the settlement the original relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent has been restored. No purpose will be served by keeping the case on file as well. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they could not file a compounding petition before the Court below. So, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this CRL.M.C.NO.2709 OF 2014 2 Court seeking the following relief:-

to quash all proceedings in furtherance to Ann-A Crime No.506 of 2008 of Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram Dist as against the petitioner, including CC.No.495 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No--I, Attingal forthwith and acquit the petitioner.

3. First respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled and it was an incident happened during their college days while they were students and he had now forgiven the act of the petitioner and the old relationship has been restored and he had filed Annexure-B affidavit stating these facts. He has no grievance against the petitioner now.

4. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that on account of the settlement, no conviction is possible and he prayed for allowing the application.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this Court, submitted that except this case, there is no other case against the petitioner but opposed the application on the ground that it was a political issue which resulted in the incident.

6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the first CRL.M.C.NO.2709 OF 2014 3 respondent were students in Government Polytechnic College, Attingal at the time when the alleged incident happened. It is also an admitted fact that both the petitioner and first respondent were members of two student unions of different political party and incident happened in connection with the college election conducted during that time in he College. It is also an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent as defacto complainant, crime No.506 of 2008 of Attingal police station was registered against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation Annexure-A final report was filed and it was taken on file as CC.No.495 of 2009 and it is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. Now the petitioner as well as the first respondent had realised their folly of indulging in political activities during their college days and now they have settled their issues and restored their relationship on account of the settlement forgiving all the past acts that happened during their college days which happened without knowing the consequence of their acts under the influence of political ideologies imposed on them by the political leaders. In view of the settlement there is no possibility of any conviction as neither the defacto complainant nor the witnesses CRL.M.C.NO.2709 OF 2014 4 will support the case of the prosecution.

7. 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 CRL.M.C.NO.2709 OF 2014 5 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."

8. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact of the matter has been settled between the parties and incident happened during their college days while they were students and now they have CRL.M.C.NO.2709 OF 2014 6 decided to forgive their acts and restored their relationship on account of the settlement happened due to the intervention of well wishers of both parties and no purpose will be served by keeping the case on file as no conviction will be possible in such cases, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to honour the settlement and allow the petitioner and the first respondent to lead a better life in their future and that should not be affected on account of an incident happened due to their ignorance of their activities under the colour of politics.

So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in CC.No.495 of 2009 (Crime No.506/08 of Attingal Police Station) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal as against the petitioner is quashed.

With the above directions and observations, this application is disposed of.

The Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court immediately.

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court