The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioner, who is the accused in S.C. No. 677 of 2011 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 687 of 2009 of Palluruthy Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant there to in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the accused by promising to marry the de facto complainant has committed rape on her on various occasions. But the accused did not marry her, and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the 2nd respondent, submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and she has no grievance against him.
5. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that as the dispute has been settled between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and pursuant to such settlement the petitioner/accused married the de facto complainant on 4-2-2013 and they are living together as husband and wife. So, it is the submission of both the counsel appearing for the respective parties that if the criminal proceedings are continued against the petitioner, it will adversely affect the smooth marital life of the petitioner and the second respondent.
6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition. Hence, I do endorse the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. While the petitioner and the second respondent are residing together after their marriage, certainly, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will create unnecessary harassment which will affect their smooth family life. As the petitioner married the second respondent and particularly, in view of the stand of the second respondent, even if trial is proceeded against the petitioner, there would not be any fruitful outcome and the same will be resulted in waste of time which would amount to abuse of process of law and proceedings.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case is Sec. 376 IPC which is more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offence is involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 2nd respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them.
8. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], in which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding 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 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..
It is further held as follows:-
“......... 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,mercandile, 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. ”
9. According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure - A2 final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No. 687/2009 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam which is now pending as S.C. No. 677/2011 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, (Adhoc-II) , Ernakulam.
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ani/