The above captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C) has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.1838/2013 of Kasaba Police Station, Kochi which is now pending as C.P.No.5/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi and all further proceedings arising therefrom in the interest of justice. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1838/2013 of Kasaba Police Station, Kochi alleging offences under Sections 294(b) Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant in this case. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that on 5.7.2013 at about 10:00 am the 2nd respondent defacto complainant, belonging to Schedule Caste community, while vending fish at Pazhagattupally market at Kumbalangi, a dispute arose in respect of the price of fish purchased by the petitioner and thereby there occurred a wordy altercation and that time the petitioner made a statement that he will not permit anyone who belongs to “pulaya community” (SC) to do their business and thereby committed the offences as alleged. Later, the entire dispute between the petitioner and 2nd respondent have been amicably settled through mediation at the instance of relatives of both parties and in view of the amicable settlement, the 2nd respondent has no existing grievances against the petitioner. It is pointed out that the entire dispute arose in the context of a wordy altercation between the 2nd respondent who was vending fish in the fish market and the petitioner who intended to purchase fish from her and that the entire disputes which arose in this case is due to the wordy altercation between them as to the price of the fish. The petitioner was prepared to offer only ` 20/- for the fish purchased, whereas the 2nd respondent had demanded for ` 10/- more etc. The 2nd respondent has sworn to affidavit dated 1.10.2014 produced as Annexure-A2 herein stating that the entire disputes between her and the petitioner have been settled in mediation and at the instance of the relatives and in view of such amicable settlement, she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner, that the dispute is purely personal in nature and that she wants to maintain a healthy relationship with the petitioner and she is not interested to prosecute the matter further and that if the impugned criminal proceedings are continued in spite of the amicable settlement, it would adversely affect the well being of both parties and to maintain the relation further since both parties are close neighbours and that no use and purpose will be served in continuing the impugned criminal proceedings in the light of the settlement. Accordingly, it is prayed by her in Annexure-2 affidavit that she has no objection in quashing the impugned final report in the aforementioned crime which is now pending as C.P.No.5/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances, the aforementioned Crl.M.C has been filed.
2. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.Jai George has taken notice for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1st respondent State of Kerala.
3. Heard Sri.S.U.Nazar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Jai George, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent State of Kerala.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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.Jai George, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted, on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 2nd respondent, that the 2nd respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioner as stated above and that she has 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 petitioner as she has no grievance against him and that she will not raise any dispute/complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings is allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that the 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 and not much element of public interest is involved. 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 the 2nd respondent, 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. 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.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to certain personal disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent due to some family dispute and they have arrived at a harmonious settlement of such disputes whereby it has also been agreed to terminate the criminal proceedings. 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.
Accordingly, Crl.M.C is allowed and the impugned Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.1838/2013 of Kasaba Police Station, Kochi which is now pending as C.P.No.5/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer concerned.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.