Kerala High Court
Siju P.K. @ Shiju vs State Of Kerala
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
MONDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2014/5TH JYAISHTA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 2263 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 400/2009 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT
----------------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
------------------------------------
SIJU P.K. @ SHIJU, AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.DAMODARAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL,
KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM
THEKKUMPADU.
BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
SRI.SAJU J. PANICKER
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND THE DE-FACTCO COMPLAINANT :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
(SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION
CRIME NO.400/2009) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. LENEESH K.V., AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.LAKSHMANAN, POKEERE HOUSE, KUNHIMANGALAM P.O.,
THEKKUMPADU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670309.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA
R2 BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
Crl.MC.No. 2263 of 2014 ()
-------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
-------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE-A1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.400/2009 OF PAYYANNUR
POLICE STATION DATED 12-8-09.
ANNEXURE-A2 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
DATED 30.4.2010.
ANNEXURE-A3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2014 IN CC.370/2011 OF
THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS COURT,
PAYYANNUR.
ANNEXURE-A4 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
------------------------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
.................................................
Crl.M.C.No.2263 of 2014
..................................................
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2014.
O R D E R
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner, who is the 4th accused in Crime No.400/2009 of Payyannur police station and the sole accused now in C.C.No.254/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, to quash the proceedings on the basis of a settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner along with others were arrayed as accused in Crime No.400/2009 of Payyannur police station which was registered on the basis of a statement given by the second respondent alleging offences under sections 341, 323, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and the case was originally taken on file as C.C.No.370/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. Accused 1 to 3 appeared and they were tried and acquitted by the court as per order dated 14.2.2014. Since the present petitioner did not appear, the case against him was split up and Crl.M.C.No.2263 of 2014 2 refiled as C.C. 254/2014 and now that is pending before that court. The matter has been settled between the parties and on account of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they could not file application before the court below. So, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief.
In the above facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure A2 charge sheet and all further proceedings in C.C.No.254/2014 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur against the petitioner, allowing this Criminal M.C.
3. The second respondent/defacto complainant appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and he has no objection in allowing the application as he has no grievance now and their original relationship has been restored. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that when the trial of the case as against accused 1 to 3 was conducted, the matter has been settled and the defacto complainant himself has admitted that none of the accused had committed any offence. It was on that basis Crl.M.C.No.2263 of 2014 3 that the other accused persons have been acquitted. Now the defacto complainant has no case that the present accused had done anything against him. So he prayed for allowing the application.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court submitted that there is no other case against the petitioner and he has no criminal back ground, but opposed the application.
5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was originally shown as the 4th accused in Crime No.400/2009 of Payyannur police station and after investigation final report was filed and that case was originally taken on file as C.C.370/2011 alleging offences under Sections 341, 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against four accused persons including the present petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that accused 1 to 3 were tried and acquitted as per Annexure A3 judgment. Now the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, who is the second respondent herein. It is also seen from Annexure-A3 judgment that during cross examination, the defacto complainant had given a clean chit to the accused persons, who appeared and faced trial. It appears Crl.M.C.No.2263 of 2014 4 that even at that time, the matter has been settled between the parties and that was the reason why he had not supported the case of the prosecution in the cross examination though he had deposed in favour of the prosecution in the chief examination. Further, the learned Magistrate after considering the evidence, acquitted the accused persons, who faced trial as well. Now the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant filed Annexure- A4 affidavit stating these facts. In view of the settlement, even if the case is allowed to proceed with, no purpose will be served as the parties will not support the case of the prosecution and it is only wastage of time to allow the prosecution to continue as against the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. Further on account of the settlement, earlier friendship and relationship has been restored between the parties.
6. 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 Crl.M.C.No.2263 of 2014 5 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. 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." Crl.M.C.No.2263 of 2014 6
7. 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 and in view of the settlement, possibility of conviction is remote even if the trial of the case is allowed to proceed with and the relationship has been restored between parties on account of the settlement, this Court feels that this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement and the harmony that has been restored between the parties.
8. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.254/2014 (Crime No.400/2009 of Payyannur police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, as against the petitioner is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.2263 of 2014 7