This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.411/2014 of Hosdurg police station, Kasaragod District 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 petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.411/2014 of Hosdurg police station of Kasaragod district, registered on the basis of the statement given by the 2nd respondent as defacto-complainant, alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 448, 341, 506(i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact there was a counter case also registered as crime No.408/2014 against the present defacto-complainant and another and both the cases have been settled on account of the intervention of mediators and the counter case is already been quashed by this court. The defacto-complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners any longer in view of the settlement and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the investigation as well in view of the settlement. Since it is in the crime stage, neither the police nor the court will drop the proceedings, so the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this court, seeking the following reliefs:
i. Call for entire records in Crime No.411/2014 on the file of Hosdurg police station and to quash entire proceedings in Crime No.411/2014 for the interest of justice.
ii. Issue any other relief that this Hon'ble High Court may due fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The 2nd respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, in view of the settlement he does not want to prosecute the petitioners and the counter case against him has been quashed on the basis of the settlement by this court. He had filed Annexure-A3 affidavit stating these facts.
4. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served in continuing with the investigation or trial and so he prayed for allowing the application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions as directed by this court submitted that, the petitioners have not involved in any other crime but in the first information report, it is mentioned that apart from the present petitioners five other identifiable persons also involved and opposed the application.
6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the 2nd respondent, Hosdurg police has registered a case as Crime No.411/2014 of Hosdurg police station against the petitioners and five identifiable persons alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 448, 341, 506(i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation is in progress. It is also an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the first petitioner herein, another crime was registered as Crime No.408/2014 against the present petitioners and others alleging offences under Sections 341, 447, 506(i) 326, 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code and that case was settled and quashed by this court as per order in Crl.M.C.No.2813/2014 dated 27.05.2014. It is seen from the affidavit and order that both are relatives and the incidents happened due to some mis-understanding and due to the intervention of mediators all the disputes between them have been settled and they have decided to withdraw the prosecution as well. It is true that apart from the petitioners, involvement of five identifiable persons have been mentioned in the first information report. When the entire matter has been settled, then there is no possibility for the petitioners or the defacto-complainant co-operating with the investigation for tracing out the un-identifiable persons as well, who have to be made parties at the later stage. Since the defacto- complainant had decided to forgo the prosecution in to-to, there is no purpose in keeping the investigation in progress as even ultimately final report is filed, they are not going to support the case of the prosecution and conviction in such cases will be remote.
7. 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.”
8. The dictum laid down in the above decision is that, in a case where family members were involved and due to the mis-understanding between the family members, some crimes have been committed and if ultimately those crimes were settled and family relationship has been restored due to the intervention of mediators and other members of the family, then court must honour such settlement and quash the proceedings invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to bring harmony among the family members, which has been restored on account of the settlement due to the intervention of members of the family and others.
9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled and counter case has already been quashed by this court and no purpose will be served by allowing the investigation to continue or ultimately final report is filed, conviction in such cases will be remote, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement and harmony that has been restored in the family relationship and the pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for such relationship.
So the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.411/2014 of Hosdurg police station, Kasaragod District, as against the petitioners and other five identifiable persons mentioned therein is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, to inform the same to the concerned police station for necessary further action in this regard.
With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss