The case set up in impugned Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.1236/2014 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur District is that the accused therein (A1 to A3/Petitioners 1 to 3) and five other identifiable persons on 29.4.2014 at 20:00 hrs, form themselves into unlawful assembly with an intention to assault 2nd respondent, trespassed into the house and thereafter they had taken the 2nd respondent in Alto car to a far away place at Korome and they had assaulted the 2nd respondent with hands and also with a harmful road and thereafter the 2nd respondent was taken to Payyannur and left him there and 2nd respondent also lost his mobile phone and the petitioners are having enmity to 2nd respondent since the 2nd respondent had eloped with the wife of the 3rd petitioner (Aneesh Kumar K.), that during the time when 2nd respondent was so assaulted, his mother, 3rd respondent herein, had interfered and she too sustained injuries and hospitalised etc. It is the case of the petitioners that they never assaulted the 2nd & 3rd respondents as alleged. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant in Annexure-1. It is stated that one Smt.Neethu is the wife of 3rd petitioner-Aneesh and that the said couple have a two year old son (Surya Raj). It is stated in the petition that the 2nd respondent herein (defacto complainant in Annexure-1 Crime) had eloped with the above said Neethu and her two year old son and after so eloping on 17.9.2014, the 2nd respondent together with Neethu and child were roaming at different places and thereafter on 24.9.2013 Smt.Neethu together with the child had surrendered before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur where her statement was recored that she had gone along with the 2nd respondent. Petitioners 1, 2 & 4 are the brothers of the 3rd petitioner. Petitioners 5 to 8 are the friends and neighbours of other petitioners. It is stated that Neethu and her child after surrendering before the Magistrate have gone to her house and she started residing along with her parents. It is stated that the entire matter was discussed between the petitioners and contesting respondents and with the help of the others all issues have been settled amicably and respondents 2 & 3, who are said to be injured in the crime, have sworn to affidavit as per Annexure 2 & 3 stating that the entire disputes have been settled between the petitioners and contesting respondents. Annexure-2 is the affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent on 7.10.2014 and Annexure-3 is the affidavit sworn by the 3rd respondent on 7.10.2014. It is stated therein by the contesting respondents that the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the contesting respondents and they are not interested any more to continue the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners and that the impugned criminal proceedings against the contesting respondents be terminated. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances that the petitioners have filed this Crl.M.C seeking invocation of the inherent powers vested on this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings in Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.1236/2012 of Payyannur Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The Crl.M.C has been admitted and Sri.P.S.Binu, Advocate, has taken notice for respondents 2 & 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.
3. Heard Sri.Philjo Varughese Philip, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.P.S.Binu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the controversy have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State.
5. Sri.P.S.Binu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by respondents 2 & 3 that they have amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and that they have no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners as they have no grievance against the petitioners and that they will not raise any dispute/complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard and submitted that this Court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard.
7. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy, which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3, it is clear to the Court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them.
8. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [ See SCC (Cri)]:
“61. 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, 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 the decision reported in the case Yogendra Yadav & others v. The State of Jharkhand & another reported in 2014 (8) Scale 634 = III (2014) Current Criminal Reports CCR 426 (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows:
“When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them”.
The Apex Court in the above case was dealing with a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for.
In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed and the impugned Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.1236/2014 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur District against all the accused and all further proceedings arising therefrom stands quashed. The petitioners shall forward certified copies of this order to the Station House Officer concerned as well as before the court below concerned.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.