Kerala High Court
Anu Soman Aged 24 Years vs Aiswarya on 5 November, 2014
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/14TH KARTHIKA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 6219 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 416/2011 of PRINCIPAL SESSIONS
COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO. 581/2009 OF RANNI POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
-----------------------
ANU SOMAN AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.SOMAN, THAZHATHETHI VEETIL, MENAMTHOTTAM
ANGADI MURI AND VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)
RESPONDENT(S)/CW2/VICTIM/STATE:
-------------------------------
1. AISWARYA
D/O.OMANA HARIKUMAR, PULLOOPRAM MURI, ANGADI VILLAGE
RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CW2)
PIN-686661.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR
RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-686845.
3. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH
R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 6219 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------
ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.581/2009 OF
RANNI POLICE STATION, NOW PENDING AS S.C. NO.416/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
=========================
Crl.M.C No.6219 of 2014
============================
Dated this the 05th day of November, 2014
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.581 of 2009 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta district for offences alleged under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation, submitted the impugned Annexure 1 final report/charge sheet in the impugned Crime No. 581 of 2009 of Ranni Police Station, which has led to the institution of the Sessions Case, S.C No.416 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner is the accused therein and the 1st respondent is the CW2/victim respectively in the said impugned criminal proceedings. It is further stated that all the disputes between the petitioner and the 1st respondent have been fully and amicably settled out of court. The de facto complainant in this case is the mother of the 1st respondent and at the time of launching the prosecution the 1st petitioner was aged 17 years and now she has attained the age of majority, it is averred.
Crl.M.C No.6219 of 2014 2
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that the petitioner/ accused who was a senior student in the school of the victim and now an autorickshaw driver had been disturbing the victim over phone and directly showing his intention to marry her and on 15.10.2009 at 4:35 p.m, while the victim was waiting in the bus stand, the accused approached her showing the intention to marry her and caught hold of her hand and body and thereby outraged her modesty. It is now stated that all the disputes between the petitioner and the 1st respondent have been amicably settled and that the 1st respondent has decided not to continue any further with the impugned criminal proceedings at Annexure 1. The 1st respondent has sworn to affidavit dated 01.11.2014 produced as Annexure 2 in this Crl.M.C stating the above said facts that she is now aged 22 years and that the accused (petitioner) had studied as senior to her in the school and that the prosecution was launched on the reason that the accused had disturbed her with the purpose of marrying her and now another marriage has been proposed for her and that the pendency of this case will adversely affect her future and that the disputes between her and 1st respondent has been amicably settled and that she no objection in termination/quashment of the Crl.M.C No.6219 of 2014 3 impugned criminal proceedings arising out of Annexure 1. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances that the above said Crl.M.C has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure 1 final report/charge sheet filed in the impugned Crime No.581 of 2011 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta district, which has led to the pendency of S.C No.416 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings arising therefrom.
3. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.V.Sethunath has taken notice for the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
4. Heard Sri.Manoranjan.V.R, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.V.Sethunath, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned impugned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, which is resulted in the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of Crl.M.C No.6219 of 2014 4 justice to both parties as the real disputants to the case have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the financial, administrative and financial resources of the State.
6. Sri.V.Sethunath, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 1st respondent that she has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioner and that she has no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner as she has no grievance against him and that they will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that this court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard.
8. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the Crl.M.C No.6219 of 2014 5 documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offence alleged is more or less personal in nature and not much element of public interest is involved. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offence is involved, the real disputants to the controversy which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, it is clear to the court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [See SCC (Cri)]:
"61. 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 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 Crl.M.C No.6219 of 2014 6 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........"
In the decision reported in the case Yogendra Yadav & others v. The State of Jharkhand & another reported in 2014 (8) Scale 634 = III (2014) Current Criminal Reports CCR 426 (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows:
"When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them".
The Apex Court in the above case was dealing with a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
Crl.M.C No.6219 of 2014 7
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited Crl.M.C No.6219 of 2014 8 supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. In the interest of justice, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure 1 final report/charge sheet filed in the impugned Crime No.581 of 2009 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta, which has led to the pendency of S.C No.416 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the Principal Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta as well as before the Station House Officer, Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge