This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in S.C.No.363/2012 pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Thalassery (Special Court for Commission of Protection of Child Rights Act) to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the case was registered against the petitioner as Crime No.4/2012 of Payangadi police station of Kannur district as Annexure-A1 first information report and after investigation Annexure-2 final report was filed, alleging commission of the offence under Section 341, 323, 294(b) of Indian Penal Code and now it is pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Thalassery, as S.C.No.363/2012. This was committed to the Special Court, when the Principal Sessions Court was designated as Special Court for trying the offences, affecting the child and child right under Section 25 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. Now the 2nd respondent, who is the defacto-complainant has become major and they are relatives as well. Now due to the intervention of mediators and well-wishers, the matter has been settled. Connected cases in respect of the same incident between the parties were also settled and the same were quashed by this court as per Annexure-A3 and A4 orders. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case. Since it affects the child right, compounding petition could not be filed before the Special Court. Some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature as well. So they have no other remedy except to approach this court, seeking the following relief:
“It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.363/2012 on the file of District and Sessions Court, Thalassery which is registered on the basis of crime No.4/2012 of Payangai police station. Otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable legally injury and hardship”.
3. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties and connected cases between the parties were also settled. So the respondents 2 and 3 do not want to prosecute the case in view of the settlement. They have filed affidavit stating these facts as well.
4. The counsel for the petitioner also stated that, in view of the settlement, conviction is not possible. So 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 petitioner, but since it is a case involving the child right, cannot be quashed invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the 3rd respondent, who is the father of the 2nd respondent, while he was a child in respect of some incident happened, Annexure-1 first information report was registered as Crime No.4/2012 of Payangadi police station, against the petitioner alleging offences under Section 341, 323, 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Annexure-2 final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, and it was originally taken on file before that court, later when Principal Sessions Courts were designated as Special Courts for trying the offences against the children or affecting their right under Section 25 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, this case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court, where it was taken on file as S.C.No.363/2012 and that is pending before that court. It is seen from the allegations in the petition that, the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 are neighbours and relatives as well. There were some cases against each other, namely C.C.No.246/2012 and 513/2012 pending between the parties and on account of the intervention of mediators, the difference of opinion between the parties have been settled and they have decided to withdraw all the prosecutions. Accordingly, on the basis of the applications filed by the accused in C.C.No.246/2012 and C.C.No.513/12, both pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, this court by Annexure-A3 and A4 order in Crl.M.C. No.1485/2014 and 1916/2014 quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in those cases. The 3rd respondent herein is the defacto-complainant in one of the case and the wife of the present petitioner is the defacto- complainant in other case in those two cases. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction in this case. Further it is true that considering the fact that the child abuse and rights of child are being violated, legislature thought of providing a Special Court for trying the offences against the child or child right. But when it is a dispute between the relatives, in which a child is also involved and on account of the intervention of mediators and well-wishers, the entire dispute between the family members have been resolved and they have decided to withdraw all the prosecutions in order to bring harmony in the family, then the pendency of criminal cases should not be a hurdle for the same and the courts must always promote such settlement to bring harmony in the family.
7. Further in this case, the 2nd respondent has now become major and now he has no grievance against the petitioner and all of them are living in harmony as well.
8. In the decision reported in Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)], it has been held that:
“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.”
9. In cases, where relatives are involved and on account of some dispute in the family, some crimes have been registered and if the matter has been settled in the mediation held due to the intervention of well-wishers of the family members of both parties and harmony has been restored in the family on account of the settlement, then the court must always promote such settlement and even if non- compoundable offence have been committed, then that can be quashed by the High Court by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that, it is a dispute between the family members and some other criminal cases between the parties have already been quashed on account of the settlement and there is no possibility of any conviction on account of the settlement and proceeding with the case will only be a wastage of judicial time, 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 the settlement, which resulted in harmony in the family.
So the application is allowed and further proceeding in S.C.No.363/2012 (Crime No.4/2012 of Payangadi police station of Kannur district) pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Thalassery, as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately for necessary further action in this regard.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss