Petitioners are accused in C.C. No.1065/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, arising out of Crime No. 217/2009 of Kondotty Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 323, 324, 506 (i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution allegation is that on 24.04.2009, at or about 24.00 hours, the accused carrying weapon like stick, reaper, cycle chain etc., attacked the injured in connection with a football tournament. A counter case was also registered against the injured, who are arrayed as respondents 2 to 7 in this Crl.M.C., at the instance of the petitioners and the same stands quashed by this Court by judgment dated 04.12.2013 in Crl.M.C. No.5837/2013. Now, the petitioners submit that the entire dispute between the parties have been settled and in order to substantiate the same Annexure C to E affidavit sworn by the injured have been produced along with Crl.M.C., as per which the Crl.M.C. NO. 2572 of 2014 2 dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably and they have no intention to proceed against the petitioners. Therefore, the prayer sought in this Crl.M.C. is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1065/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. 2. Heard, the learned counsel for petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 7.
3. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2012(4) KLT 108, the Apex Court held that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purpose of quashing, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimonial 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 these category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings, if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of a conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and Crl.M.C. NO. 2572 of 2014 3 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 may consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrong-doer 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 is in affirmative the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is for commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 323, 324, 506 (i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, as evident from Annexure C to E affidavits sworn by respondents 2 to 7, who are the injured persons, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the said injured persons have no intention to proceed against the petitioners. The counter case initiated at the instance of the petitioners against the said respondents has also stands quashed by the judgment of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.5837/2013.
Crl.M.C. NO. 2572 of 2014 4
5. In such circumstances, this is a fit case in which the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1065/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Singh's case supra.
6. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 1065/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram is quashed.
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE DMR/-
“C.C. No. 1065/2009” occurring in the 1st and 20th lines of 1st paragraph, 3rd and 4th lines of 5th paragraph and in the 2nd line of last paragraph of the final order is corrected and substituted as “C.C. No. 1065/2010”, vide order dated 29.01.2015 in Crl.M.A. No. 10066/2014 in Crl. M.C. No. 2572/2014.
Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)