Kerala High Court
Somaraja Panicker vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2014
Author: V.K.Mohanan
Bench: V.K.Mohanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/22ND SRAVANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 4558 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 804/2012 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION.
........
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A1 TO 3:
--------------------------------------------------
1. SOMARAJA PANICKER, AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O.KESHAVAN, SEENA VIHAR, PARIYARAM MURI,
ELANTHUR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2. VISHNU SHAJI, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O.SHAJI, VISHNU VIHAR, NELLIKKALA MURI,
ELANTHUR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
3. BHARTHAN, AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O.KESHAVAN, ILAMATHARA HOUSE, NELLIKKALA MURI,
ELANTHUR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA 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. SEENA MANOJ, AGED 36 YEARS,
D/O.SOMARAJA PANICKER, SEENA VIHAR,
PARYARAYAM MURI, ELANTHUR VILLAGE,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
Crl.MC.No. 4558 of 2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE-A: A PHOTO COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.M.P NO.3126/2012
FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHENGANNUR.
ANNEXURE-B: A PHOTO COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.804/2012 OF
CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4558 of 2014
-------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2014.
O R D E R
The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No. 804/2012 of Chengannur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 452 and 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure B FIR in Crime No.804/2012 of Chengannur Police Station and all further proceedings on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur as the matter is settled out of court.
2. The allegation in the above case is that on 10.06.2012 at 10 a.m due to the prior enmity towards the de facto complainant, the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention they have illegally trespassed into the de facto complainant's house and stolen the 2nd respondents Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KL 03-Q8686 and the accused have committed the aforesaid offences and Crl.M.C.No.4558 of 2014 2 now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings.
5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent, submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she has no grievance against them.
6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the Crl.M.C.No.4558 of 2014 3 case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 379, 452 and 34 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 2nd respondent, it appears to me that the the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], in which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR 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 Crl.M.C.No.4558 of 2014 4 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..
It is further held as follows:-
"......... 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 cases, 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........"
According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out Crl.M.C.No.4558 of 2014 5 of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure - B FIR and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur, in Crime No. 804/2012 of Chengannur Police Station and all further proceedings thereto.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE
vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge