Kerala High Court
Revn. B.N. Fenn vs Rt. Rev. Dr. K.P Kuruvila on 17 February, 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
FRIDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/4TH ASWINA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 5474 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CC.NO. 293/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPPALAM
CRIME NO. 488/2012 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
------------------
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 7 :
--------------------------------------------------------
1. REVN. B.N. FENN, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.DR.B.N.SEN, ST.STEPHEN CHURCH, CSI PARSONAGE
CHEROOR, THRISSUR.
2. REV. P.K. MAMMEN, AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.P.M.KOCHITTY, CSI CHRIST CHURCH, KUNNUMMEL
MALAPPURAM.
3. JAYAPAL SAMUEL ZAHAI, 59 YEARS
S/O.BENJAMIN, SONIA DALE HOUSE, VENGARI P.O.
KOZHIKODE.
4. REV. VINOD ALLEN, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. REV. R.G. ALLEN, CSI CHURCH, CHOWA
KANNUR.
5. REV. JOY ALEX, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.DAVID, CSI CHURCH, PUTHIYANGADI
KOZHIKODE.
6. REV. ANIL DAVID, AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.DAVID, CSI CHURCH, KOLAPPURAM
MANDOOR (VIA), VALAYATHODU P.O., KANNUR.
7. J.UMMEN, AGED 60 YEARS
YMCA SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM SOUTH.
BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
BY ADVS.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
...2/-
Crl.MC.No. 5474 of 2014 () -2-
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. RT. REV. DR. K.P KURUVILA
S/O. POTHAN, CHELAKULAM, SHORNUR
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679121.
2. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...3/-
Crl.MC.No. 5474 of 2014 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 488/2012 OF
SHORNUR POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS CC
NO. 293/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPPALAM.
ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C. NO. 646/2013 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 17.2.2014.
ANNEXURE C THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.5474 of 2014
-------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of September, 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 petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No.293 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-Ottapalam, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.488 of 2012 of Shornur Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 448, r/w 149 of I.P.C. and section 120(Q) of the Kerala Police Act, with a prayer to quash Annexure A final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court.
2. The allegation in the above case is that on 14.5.2012 at about 12.00 p.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into Crl.M.C.No.5474 of 2014 2 the residence cum office of the de facto complainant, forcefully tried to close down the office, forcefully took away the car keys of the de facto complainant and pasted notices and posters on the door and in the office and thereby committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 1st respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute, which is the subject matter of the above case, as per Annexure C affidavit sworn into by the 1st respondent/ de facto complainant. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.
5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent who Crl.M.C.No.5474 of 2014 3 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 petitioners and he has no grievance against the petitioners.
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 Sections 143, 147, 341, 448, r/w 149 of I.P.C. and section 120(Q) of the Kerala Police Act, which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to Crl.M.C.No.5474 of 2014 4 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 de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/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.5474 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.5474 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 A final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.488 of 2012 of Shornur Police Station and in C.C.No.293 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-Ottapalam.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.
ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge