Kerala High Court
Vineesh vs Sajeev. V.N on 8 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 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/18TH CHAITHRA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 2023 of 2014 (G)
---------------------------------------
[C.P. NO.65/2013 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA]
............
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------
1. VINEESH, AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O.VIPINAN, ACHUTHASSERY, EDAPARIYARAM P.O,
ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
2. RATHEESH, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.RAVI, PARACKAL THEKKETHIL, EDAPARIYARAM P.O,
ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
3. RANJU, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.BAIJUKUMAR, KURIKKANTE KALAPIL, PARIYARAM P.O,
ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
4. MANIKUTTAN, AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.ANANDAKUTTAN, MANI BHAVAN, PARIYARAM P.O,
ELATHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
5. BICHOO, AGED 26 YEARS,
S/O.BABU, VIMALA BHAVAN, EDAPARIYARAM P.O,
ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
6. ANU D. AGED 23 YEARS,
S/O.BABU, VIMALA BHAVAN, EDAPARIYARAM P.O,
ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE,
ADVS.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN,
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ.
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SAJEEV. V.N, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.NANU, VARATTUCHIRA VEEDU, EDAPPARIYARAM P.O,
ELANTHOOR PANCHAYATH, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 643.
Prv.
CRL.M.C. NO.2023/2014-F:
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK.JOY.K,
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE.P.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Prv.
CRL.M.C. NO.2023/2014-G:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE-A: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.P NO.65/2013 OF
THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE-B: THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 1ST RESPONDENT/DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT INFORMING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT
BEFORE THIS HONORUABLE COURT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
----------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C No. 2023 of 2014-G
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th April, 2014
O R D E R
This is an application filed by accused Nos. 1 to 6 in C.P. No. 65/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Pathanamthitta to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 6 in C.P. 65/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. The case was originated on the basis of a statement given by the 1st respondent as defacto complainant as Crime No. 746/2011 of Aranmula Police Station alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 308 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.P. 65/2013 and it is pending before the Judicial first Crl.M.C No. 2023 of 2014-G 2 Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. In the meantime the matter has been settled between the parties. The parties are neighbours and the settlement was arrived at on account of the intervention of well-wishers of both parties. In view of the settlement, the defacto complainant is not now interested in prosecuting the case. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well in view of the settlement. Since some of the offences are non- compoundable in nature, they could not file the application for compounding before the court below. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"For these and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing, it is most humbly payed that this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to allow the criminal miscellaneous case and quash Annexure A charge sheet and further proceedings in C.P. No. 65/2013 of the Court of the Judicial Crl.M.C No. 2023 of 2014-G 3 first Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta and allow the criminal miscellaneous case, so as to secure the ends of justice".
3. The first respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that due to the intervention of mediators and well-wishers in the locality of both parties, matter has been settled and their friendship has been restored. So he does not want to prosecute the petitioners and he has no grievance against them any more and he had also submitted that he had filed Annexure B affidavit stating these facts. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of settlement, the possibility of conviction is remote and he prayed for allowing the application.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this Court, submitted that except this case there is no other criminal case pending against the petitioners and they have no criminal background, but opposed the application on the ground that grave offences Crl.M.C No. 2023 of 2014-G 4 have been committed and it is not a fit case to quash at this stage.
5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the 1st respondent as defacto complainant, Crime No. 746/2011 was registered against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 447, 323, 324, 325, 308 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation Annexure A final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.P. 65/2013 and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. In the meantime the matter has been settled between the parties.
6. The defacto complainant who is shown as first respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled as they are neighbours due to intervention of well-wishers of both parties in the locality and on account of settlement he does not want to prosecute the petitioners. Annexure -B affidavit was also filed by the Crl.M.C No. 2023 of 2014-G 5 first respondent stating these facts. It is true that grave offences like Sections 325 and 308 of Indian Penal Code were incorporated. But considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and they are neighbours and due to the intervention of mediators and well-wishers their relationship has been restored and they are now living in harmony, there is no possibility of defacto complainant and his witnesses giving evidence supporting the case of the prosecution and conviction in such case is remote. So even this Court allows the prosecution to continue, no purpose will be served and it will be only a wastage of judicial time which can be exercised by the court to consider a better case.
7. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)], it is held as follows:
"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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 Crl.M.C No. 2023 of 2014-G 6 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. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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 case, 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 Crl.M.C No. 2023 of 2014-G 7 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 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 the matter has been settled between the parties and the victim himself has appeared before this Court and submitted that the matter has been settled and he does not want to proceed against the petitioners as friendship and harmony has been restored on account of the settlement and no possibility of conviction being entered into against the petitioners and in view of this fact proceeding the case will be of no use as neither the complainant nor his witnesses will support the case of the prosecution, this Court feels that this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote harmony that has been restored Crl.M.C No. 2023 of 2014-G 8 between the defacto complainant and the petitioners.
Hence the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.P.65/2013 (Crime No. 746/2011 of Aaranmula Police Station) pending before the Judicial First class Magistrate Court
- II, Pathanamthitta as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- II, Pathanamthitta for necessary further action in this regard.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
rka /true copy/