CRMC 3050/14 was filed by the 2nd accused in C.C.41/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta, and Crl. M.C.3015/2014 filed by accused Nos. 1 and 3 in the same case, both for quashing the proceedings, on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code). 2. The common allegation in both the petition was that, the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.476/2012 of Konni Police Station, which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 3rd respondent in both the cases, alleging commission of the offences under Section 447, 294(b), 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.533/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta, and after a notification was issued under Section 25 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, designating the Principal Sessions Court as Special Court for trying of such offences, the learned magistrate converted the same into C.P.41/2013. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. No purpose will be served in proceeding with the case. Since it is a case triable by Sessions Court, the magistrate will not allow compounding. So the petitioners in both cases have no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief:
“It is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court my be pleased to quash Annexure-1 FIR, and Annexure-3 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.41/2013 on the file of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta”.
3. 3rd respondent appeared through counsel and filed affidavit in both the cases, stating that, the matter has been settled and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings.
4. The counsel for the petitioner in both the cases submitted that, after the case was converted to C.P. 41/2013, now it has been committed to the Principal Sessions Court, but the Sessions Court has not taken cognizance of the case so far and no summons has been issued from that court. In view of the fact that the matter has been settled, no purpose will be served and so he prayed for allowing the prosecution.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this court, submitted that, except this case there no other case against the petitioners and since it is a case involving the child’s right, the power under Section 482 cannot be invoked to quash the proceedings.
6. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the 3rd respondent, while he was a child, crime No.476/2012 of Konny police station was registered against the petitioners in both the cases, arraying them as accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences under Section 447, 423, 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed and it was originally taken as C.C.No.533/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. After the establishment of Special Courts under Section 25 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, designating Principal Sessions Court as Special Courts for trial of cases involving child or child's right, the learned magistrate converted the same as C.P.No.41/2013 and it is now submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that, magistrate has already committed the case to Principal Sessions Court but it was not taken on file so far in that court and no summons has been issued from that court. It is true that Special Courts have been constituted under the above said Act for the purpose of Protecting the Rights of Children and their rights, if they have been violated, taking into account that, the children are being abused and their rights have been violated and none to protect them and if it is brought to the notice of the court, then that will have to be seriously dealt with. With that intention, the Special Courts have been constituted under the above said Act in respect of cases involving children or their right. At the time when the incident happened, the petitioners and the defacto-complainant were students and without knowing the consequences of the incidents, some incident happened, which resulted in the registration of the crime. Now the child has become major and he had decided to forgive the petitioners and he does not want to prosecute them as well. Further considering the nature of allegations made and also the trivial nature of offences alleged and since it has been settled between the parties and the relationship has been restored, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case, as even the defacto-complainant will not support the case of the prosecution and conviction in such cases will be remote. So under such circumstances, allowing the prosecution to continue will amount only wastage of judicial time.
7. Further in the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)], “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case an 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 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 other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings 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 an 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 defacto- complainant, who was a child at the time of the alleged incident and has become major now and he does not want to prosecute the case, in view of the settlement arrived at due to the intervention of well-wishers of both parties and the relationship has been restored and conviction in such cases will be remote, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote harmony that has been restored between the parties on account of the settlement.
So the applications are allowed and further proceedings in C.P.No.41/2013 (old C.C.No.533/2013 in crime No.476/2012 of Konny Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court–II, Pathanamthitta, which has now been committed to the Principal Sessions Court, as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta, and also to Principal Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, where the case has to be tried after taking cognisance, as the case has already been committed according to the counsel for the petitioner, for necessary further action in this regard.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss