Petitioners herein are the two accused in S.C.No.16/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kasaragod. Petitioners were originally accused Nos. 2 & 5 in Crime No.26/2012 of Hosdurg Police Station. They appeared in crime stage and released on bail and the case against them was committed and numbered as S.C.No.16/2013 as above said. The case against them was registered on the basis of an oral complaint of the complainant, 2nd respondent herein, against the accused alleging offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 & 308 r/w 149 IPC by the Station House Officer, Hosdurg Police Station in Crime No.26/2012. The police after investigation submitted impugned Annexure-A1 Final Report/Charge Sheet. The prosecution case is that on 13.1.2012 at about 23:15 hrs, while CWs1 & 2 were travelling in a motor cycle, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention restrained and attacked with an iron rod and that thereby they have committed the above said offences. Final Report/Charge Sheet in Crime No.26/2012 was filed by the Station House Officer, Hosdurg Police Station against the four accused persons alleging the above said offences and taken into file as C.P.No.123/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. The case against accused 2 & 5 (petitioners herein) was committed to the sessions court. The case against A1 & A3 was split up and refiled as C.P.No.1737/2012 and made over to long pending list as they were absconding. The two petitioners herein are the accused in S.C.No.16/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kasaragod. It is stated that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent were close family friends and that the names of the petitioners were implicated in the crime only due to misunderstanding and due to doubt and subsequently the matter has been settled. The 2nd respondent, who is the defacto complainant, has given Annexure-A2 consent letter signed before the Advocate Notary stating that the entire disputes between the parties have been settled and that the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners may be terminated etc. The 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) has sworn to affidavit dated 27.3.2014 produced as Annexure-A3 in this Crl.M.C stating that subsequently the disputes have been amicably since the names of the petitioners are mentioned only due to misunderstanding and normal doubt and that now the disputes have been fully settled between them and that the 2nd respondent has no grievance against them and that the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.16/2013 may be quashed by this Court. That the 2nd respondent has got a better job opportunity in the Gulf and that in order to join for the said employment he is not in a position to stay in the native place etc. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances that the above said petition has been filed seeking to quash the entire impugned proceedings arising out of S.C.No.16/2013 pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kasaragod etc.
2. The Crl.M.C has been admitted and Sri.Ajeesh K.Sasi, Advocate, has taken notice for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.
3. Heard Sri.K.P.Harish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Ajeesh K.Sasi, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the controversy 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 judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State.
5. Sri.Ajeesh K.Sasi, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and that he 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 petitioners as he has no grievance against them and that he will not raise any dispute/complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard 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.
7. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are 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 2nd respondent, it is clear to the Court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them.
8. 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 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.
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 supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for.
In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed and the impugned criminal proceedings in S.C.No.16/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kasaragod and all further proceedings arising therefrom are quashed in the interest of justice. The petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order to the Station House Officer concerned as well as before the court below concerned.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.