Kerala High Court
T.P.Gireesh Kumar vs T.V. Sudha on 18 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
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/27TH SRAVANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 4630 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CC. NO.523/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR.
.......
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------
T.P.GIREESH KUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, "KARTHIKA",
THALAP. P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL,
SRI.P.S.BINU.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------------------
1. T.V. SUDHA, AGED 46 YEARS,
W/O.GOPALAN. P.,"SARAVANAM",
PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 303.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANEESHA.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
Crl.MC.No. 4630 of 2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE I. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.95/14 OF
PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE II. THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4630 of 2014
-------------------------------
Dated this the 18th 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 petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.523 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-Payyannur, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.95 of 2014 of Payyannur Police Station] for the offences punishable under Section 354(D) of I.P.C. and section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, with a prayer to quash Annexure I final report and all further proceedings in the above calendar case, as the matter is settled out of court.
2. The allegation in the above case is that on 24.1.2014 at 17.30 hours, the accused person trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and outraged Crl.M.C.No.4630 of 2014 2 the modesty by caught hold of her body etc. and it is also alleged that the husband of the de facto complainant and the wife of the petitioner are working as Executive Engineers in Water Authority, Project Division at Mattannur and there was some misunderstanding between them and in pursuance of which, a complaint was made against the husband of the de facto complainant by the wife of the petitioner. Hence the de facto complainant also made complaint against the petitioner. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute, as per Annexure II affidavit. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.
Crl.M.C.No.4630 of 2014 3
5. The learned counsel for the 1st 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 petitioner and she has no grievance against him.
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 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 Section 354(D) of I.P.C. and section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is Crl.M.C.No.4630 of 2014 4 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 1st respondent, it appears to me that the the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/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 Gian Singh's 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 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."Crl.M.C.No.4630 of 2014 5
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, mercandile, 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. According to me, 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 of court, in the event of Crl.M.C.No.4630 of 2014 6 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 decision 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 I final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.523 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-Payyannur.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.
ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge