This is an application filed by the accused persons in Crime No.2953/2013 of Kottarakara Police Station for quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as the 'Code') 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners were arrayed as accused persons in Crime No.2953/2013 of Kottarakara Police Station on the basis of the statement given by the third respondent alleging commission of offences under Section 294(b), 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The incident happened on account of some dispute regarding the playing of songs in the bus and the de facto complainant and the petitioners were employees working in the same bus. Now the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of mediators and well wishers of both parties and the de facto complainant does not want to prosecute the case further. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well. Since it is in the crime stage and non compoundable offences were included, neither the police nor the court before whom the case is now pending will not drop further proceedings. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief.
to call for the records leads to this case and to quash Annexure I proceedings in CrimeNo.2953/2013 Kottarakara Police Station now pending before the Hon'ble Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court No.I Kottarakara against the petitioners and further proceedings against the petitioners in the interest of justice.
4. The third respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that since they were friends and on account of some dispute in respect of playing some songs in the vehicle, some incident occurred and now the matter has been settled due to the intervention of mediators and others and they are working in the same bus now. So he does not want to prosecute the petitioners. He has filed Anneuxre II affidavit stating these facts as well.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served allowing the case to continue.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions as directed by this Court submitted that there is no other case pending against the petitioners but offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is also incorporated and opposed the application.
7. Heard both sides.
8. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by second respondent in respect of an incident occurred regarding playing of some songs in the bus in which both the de facto complainant and the petitioners were working, Annexure A1 crime was registered as Crime No.2953/2013 of Kottarakara Police station against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter is under investigation. In the meantime, it is seen from Annexure II affidavit that the matter has been settled between the parties and the de facto complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners in view of the settlement arrived at due to the intervention of well wishers of both parties. It is true that the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal code is also incorporated. I am not at this stage going into the question as to whether the allegations are sufficient to attract the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code or not at this stage as the matter has been settled between the parties. Further, the nature of injury sustained is also not that grave and it is admitted fact that both the petitioners and the de facto complainant were working in the same bus and on account of the settlement, their original relationship has been restored as well as they are now working together in the same bus.
9. In view of the settlement there is no possibility of either the de facto complainant or his witnesses to support or co-operate with the investigation and filing the final report itself will be difficult. Even assuming that on the basis of available evidence, if final report is filed, they will not support the case of prosecution as well at the time of trial and conviction of such cases will be remote.
10. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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.”
11. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the petitioners and the third respondent are employees in the same bus and the matter has been settled between the parties and on account of settlement, their original relationship has been restored and there is no possibility of conviction even if ultimately the final report is filed, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the code can be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the restoration of relationship that has been caused on account of the settlement and the pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same.
So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.2953/2013 of Kottarakara Police Station as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Kottarakara to inform the same to the Kottarakara Police Station for necessary further action in this regard immediately.
Sd/-K.RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE MJL