This is an application filed by the accused in Crime No.67/2014 of Payyannur Police Station, to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as the 'Code') 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are the accused in Crime No.67/2014 of Payyannur Police Station which was registered on the basis of the statement given by de facto complainant/ injured namely the 1st respondent, alleging conviction of Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact the incident occurred in connection with temple festival due to some misunderstanding between persons who were friends earlier and due to the intervention of the mediators and well wishers of both parties, the matter has been now settled and the de facto complainant does not want to proceed with the case. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by alleging investigation to continue as ultimately even if final report is filed conviction will not be possible. Since it is in the crime stage and grave offences were incorporated, neither the police not the court will drop further proceedings even though the matter is settled between the parties. So the petitioners are no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:
i) to quash Annexure AI F.I.R in Crime No.67 of 2014 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur District;
ii) to issue any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.
3. First respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of mediators and he does not want to prosecute the petitioners and he filed Annexure A II affidavit stating these facts.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served in keeping the case on file and he prayed for allowing the application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this Court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners but since it is in the crime stage and grave offences were incorporated opposed the quashing of the case at this stage.
6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the 1st respondent Annexure A1, First Information Report was registered as Crime No.67/2014 of Payyannur Police Station against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. It is seen from the allegations in the petition that the petitioners and the de facto complainant were friends and the incident happened as an aftermath of an incident occurred in the temple ground during the festival in the temple. Now the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of mediators and the relationship between the parties has been restored. It is true that the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code has been incorporated and it is a grave offence but I am not at this stage going by the question as to whether the allegations are sufficient to attract the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code itself in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. However, since the matter has been settled between the parties, neither the de facto complainant nor their witnesses will co-operate with the investigation and even if ultimately, on the basis of the evidence collected, final report is filed, no conviction will be possible as the witnesses will not support the case of prosecution. It will only the wastage of judicial time as well.
8. The decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)] 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, original relationship between the parties has been restored and no purpose will be served by allowing either the investigation to continue or the case to be proceeded with after final report as the conviction of such cases will be remote, this Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement which restored the relationship between the parties.
So the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.67/2014 of the Payyannur Police Station as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur to inform the same to the Payyannur Police Station for necessary further action in this regard immediately.
Sd/-K.RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE MJL