Kerala High Court
Jinto vs State Of Kerala on 1 April, 2014
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2014/11TH CHAITHRA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 1822 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CC 66/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I,
NORTH PARAVUR
---------
PETITIONERS:
-----------
1. JINTO, AGED 27 YEARS,S/O.CHAKKAPPAN,
VALAPPIL VEETTIL, VATTEKKATTUKUNNU KARA,
PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM 683 594.
2. MARIYAMMA, AGED 61 YEARS,W/O.CHAKKAPPAN,
VALAPPIL VEETTIL, VATTEKKATTUKUNNU KARA,
PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM 683 594.
BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
(REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PUTHENVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT)
2. JOSE, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.VARUTHUKUTTY, VALAPPIL VEETTIL,
VATTEKKATTUKKUNNU KARA, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM 683 594.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA
R2 BY SRI.S.R.SREEJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01-04-2014 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.1823/2014, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BP
Crl.MC.No. 1822 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC 66/10 OF THE
COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST
CLASS 1, NORTH PARAVUR.
ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATS.
ANNEXURE A3. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
BP
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
.................................................
Crl.M.C.Nos.1822 & 1823 of 2014
..................................................
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2014.
O R D E R
Crl.M.C.No.1822/2014 was filed by accused 1 and 3 in C.C.No.66/2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur, while Crl.M.C.No.1823/2014 was filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.690/2010 pending before the same court for quashing the proceedings in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in both the petitions that there was an incident occurred in which both the petitioners sustained injuries. On the basis of a statement given by the 2nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.1822/2014, who was the second petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1823/2014, Crime No.17/2007 of Puthenvelikkara police station was registered against the petitioners and another person in that case alleging commission of the offences under Sections 324, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.66/2010 against the present Crl.M.C.Nos.1822 & 1823 of 2014 2 petitioners and one Chakkappan as the second accused. The said Chakkappan died and charge against him was abated. In respect of the same incident, another crime was registered as Crime No.18/2007 by the same police against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1823/2014 alleging commission of the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and this case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the deceased Chakkappan and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.690/2010 and both the cases are pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, North Paravur. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners in both the cases are relatives. Jose and Chakkappan, who are the respective defacto complainants in both the cases are brothers and accused in C.C.No.66/2010, who are the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1822/2014, are the wife and son of Chakkappan and accused in C.C.No.690/2010, who are the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1823/2014 are said Jose, his wife and son.
3. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and family relationship has been restored as well on account of the settlement due to intervention of mediators. Both the Crl.M.C.Nos.1822 & 1823 of 2014 3 parties do not want to prosecute the respective prosecutions against accused persons. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they could not file application before the court below for compounding. So they have no other option except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:
Crl.M.C.No.1822/2014:
For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the Honourable Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and quash ANNEXURE-A1, charge sheet and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.66 of 2010 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, North Paravur in Ernakulam District, so as to secure the ends of justice.
Cr.M.C.No.1823/2014:
Hence it is humbly prayed that the Honourable Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Cae and quash the ANNEXURE-A, charge sheet and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.690 of 2010 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, North Paravur in Ernakulam District, so as to secure the ends of justice.
4. The injured in both the cases appeared though counsel Crl.M.C.Nos.1822 & 1823 of 2014 4 and submitted that they are relatives and the matter has been settled between the parties and one of accused namely Chakkappan, who is the brother of the second petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1823/2014, died and after his death, due to the intervention of mediators and family members the matter has been settled and the family relationship has been restored on account of the settlement. So they do not want to prosecute each other. The petitioners in both the cases also submitted that in view of the settlement there is possibility of any conviction arises.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this Court in both the cases, submitted that except this case, there is no other case against the petitioners and and they are relatives, but opposed the application considering the fact that the offence under Section 326 is involved in both the cases.
6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by Chakkappan, who is the brother of Jose, who is the second respondent in Crl.M.C.No.1822/2014 and the second petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1823/2014, Crime No.18/2007 of Puthenvelikkara police station has been registered against the Crl.M.C.Nos.1822 & 1823 of 2014 5 petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1823/2014 and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.690/2010 and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur. In respect of the same incident, on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent in Crl.M.C.No.1822/2013 and the second petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1823/2014 another crime was registered as Crime No.17/2007 by the same police against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No1822/2014 and deceased Chakkappan and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.66/2010 and both the cases are pending before the same court. The fact that the accused in both the cases are relatives and one of the defacto complainants is no more now. It is also alleged in the affidavits filed by the respective defacto complainant and the injured person that the matter has been settled between the parties and the family relationship has been restored due to intervention of mediators and they do not want to prosecute each other. It is an admitted fact that in view of the settlement, two families of brothers have joined together and pendency of the cases should not be a hurdle for their relationship. Further, it was due to some Crl.M.C.Nos.1822 & 1823 of 2014 6 misunderstanding between the two brothers that the incident happened, which resulted in registering two crimes and filing final report as well. Now they have settled the issue and residing together happily. In view of the settlement in both the cases, the injured persons are not going to support the case of the prosecution and conviction in both the cases is remote as it is a case and counter case and both the parties have settled their disputes due to intervention of mediators.
7. Further in the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"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 Crl.M.C.Nos.1822 & 1823 of 2014 7 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 proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings 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 an 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 that parties to the litigation in both the cases are relatives and due to intervention of mediators and family members, the dispute has been resolved and harmony has been restored in the family of two brothers and one of the brothers is no more now and possibility of Crl.M.C.Nos.1822 & 1823 of 2014 8 conviction is remote, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote settlement and restoration of harmony that has been brought in the family of two brothers and pendency of both the cases would not be hurdle for the same. So the petitions are allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.66/2010 (Crime No.17/2007 of Puthenvelikkara police station) and C.C.No.690/2010 (Crime No.18/2007 of the same police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur as against the petitioners in both the cases are hereby quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for further action in this matter.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge