-------- This is an application filed by the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC.No.1969 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Kottarakkara to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (herein after called the Code).
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 were students of Travancore Engineering College, Kollam and on account of some difference opinion between them, there was some incident happened and the first respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Kottarakkara against the petitioners alleging commission of offences under Section 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which was forwarded to the police for investigation by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On receipt of the above complaint, a case was registered as Crime No.607 of 2009 of Pooyappaly police station and after investigation Annexure-A1 final report was filed which was taken on file as CC.No.1969 of 2010 and it is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Kottarakkara. In the meantime, the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of family members and well wishers of both parties. Respondents 1 to 3 who are the defacto complainant and injured in the case do not want to prosecute the petitioners any longer on account of the settlement. No purpose will be served by continuing the case as well in view of the settlement. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they could not file the application before the Court below for record compounding. So, they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:-
to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner, in CC.No.1969 of 2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Kottarakkara, in the interest of justice.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not want to prosecute the petitioners any longer in view of the settlement and their relationship has been restored on account of the settlement and they have now filed Annexure-A5 to A7 affidavits stating these facts.
4. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case and no conviction will be possible as well. 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 petitioners but opposed the application.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 3 were students in the Travancore Engineering College, Kollam at the time when the incident happened. It is also an admitted fact that the incident happened in connection with the election conducted in the College. It is also an admitted fact that the case was registered on the basis of a private complaint which was forwarded to the police and after investigation Annexure-A1 final report was filed and it is now pending as CC.No.1969 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Kottarakkara. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. Since there was some defect in the earlier Annexure II to IV affidavits that was corrected and fresh Annexure -A5 to A7 affidavits were filed, in which the defacto complainant and other injured persons have stated that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not have any further grievance against the petitioners and on account of the settlement, their old relationship has been restored. On account of the settlement there is no possibility of conviction also as neither the defacto complainant nor the witnesses will support the case of the prosecution. Further the incident happened during their college days when, they were motivated by some political parties and under the influence of the political ideologies which they were not really understood at that time and now they have realized their fault and they want to rectify themselves and lead a happy life. Further, it cannot be said to be a matter of public interest as well as a private dispute between the parties has been entered in registration of the crime and filing of the final report which has now been settled due to the intervention of well wishers of both parties and they have decided to forget and forgive and to have a good relationship in future.
7. In the decision in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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. 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 case, 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 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. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties as it happened during their college days without knowing the consequences and now they have realized their mistakes and want to rectify themselves and settlement has restored their old relationship and conviction in such case is remote, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement and restoration of relationship between the parties.
So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in CC.No.1969 of 2010 (Crime No.607 of 2009 of Pooyappaly police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No- II, Kottarakkara as against the petitioners is quashed.
With the above directions and observations this application is disposed of.
The Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court immediately for further necessary action in this regard.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV