This is an application filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in Crime No.293/2012 of Adoor Police Station on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Originally first accused alone had filed the petition seeking the relief in respect of him alone. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a B-Tech Civil Engineering Graduate and he is working as a Civil Engineer in ABC Engineers and Designers, Adoor, Pathanamthitta District. The petitioner and the de facto complainant were friends and as a personal dispute between the de facto complainant, the petitioner and his friends, there was some incident happened on 16.02.2012 at 9.00 p.m. and in respect of the incident, on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent, first respondent registered Annexure 1 First Information Report as Crime No.293/2012 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324,427 and 186 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and 4 others. Originally the petitioner had settled the claim with de facto complainant and filed the application for quashing the proceedings as against him. When it was pointed out as to whether the case was settled in respect of others also, they submitted that the matter has been settled in respect of others as well and accordingly, additional petitioners 2 to 4 were impleaded as per order in Crl M.A.No.3494/2014. But, the relief portion was not amended. So, as directed by this court, the petitioner had produced an amended petition showing all the petitioners and also seeking relief in respect of all the accused persons to quash the proceedings. In the amended petition, the petitioners sought for the following relief:
“To quash Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.293/2012 dated 16.02.2012 of Adoor Police Station and all further proceedings taken against the petitioners on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor, by allowing this Memorandum of Criminal Miscellaneous Case, in the interest of justice.”
3. The second respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of mediators and he has no grievance against the petitioners and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings in view of the settlement. He had also submitted that he had filed Annexure 2 and another affidavit stating these facts.
4. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no purpose in keeping the case and prayed for allowing the application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed to this court submitted that, except this case, there is no other case against the petitioners and they have no criminal background but opposed the application on the ground that it is in the crime stage.
6. Heard both sides.
7. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent, Annexure A1 First Information Report was registered against the petitioners in the amended petition as Crime No.293/2012 alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324,427 and 186 of Indian Penal Code. There were some dispute between the parties which resulted the incident. The matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of mediators. It is mentioned in the petition itself that both the petitioner and the de facto complainant were friends and due to some misunderstanding, the present case has been registered. Now, the misunderstanding has been resolved and the relationship has been restored. The de facto complainant also filed affidavits stating these facts. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of either the de facto complainant or his witnesses to co-operate with the investigating officer to file the final report or even if the final report is filed support the case of the prosecution and conviction in such cases are remote. So, under the circumstances, there is no purpose will be served by keeping the case any longer.
8. Further, 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 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 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.”
9. 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 on account of the settlement, their original relationship has been restored and no purpose will be served by allowing the prosecution to continue and conviction in such cases are remote, this court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement which restored the relationship between the parties.
10. So, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.293/2012 of Adoor Police Station, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately for necessary action in the case.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge