These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases, seeking invocation of the inherent powers conferred on this Court as per Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. have been filed with the prayers to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.540/2013 on the file of the Sessions Court, Palakkad arising out of Crime No.586/2013 of Shornur Police Station, and to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No. 98/2013 of Juvenile Justice Court, Palakkad, arising out of Crime No. 586/2013 of Shornur Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The three petitioners in Crl.M.C.No. 5813/2013 are accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 in Crime No. 586/2013 of Shornur Police Station. The sole petitioner in Crime No. 5815/2013 (who was a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence of the offence) is the 2nd accused in Crime No.586/2006 of Shornur Police Station. The above crime was registered for offences alleged under Sec. 341 read with Sec.34 of the IPC, Sec. 119(a) of Kerala Pollice Act and Sec.12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The brief of the prosecution case is that on 30.5.2013, at about 4 p.m. the accused persons had wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and her friend (3rd respondent and the daughter of the 4th respondent) while they were returning from the school and abused them by sexual gestures and thus degraded their dignity and hence committed the aforementioned offences. On receiving complaint, Crime No.586/2013 was registered by the Shornur Police against the aforementioned four accused persons. The police after investigation filed the final report/charge sheet before the competent court and now the matter is pending as S.C.No. 540/2013 on the file of the Sessions Court, Palakkad, in respect of A1, A3 and A4 (the three petitioners in Crl.M.C.No. 5813/2014). Since A-2 (the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No. 5815/2014) was a minor at the time of the occurrence of the alleged offences, the case against him was filed before the Juvenile Justice Court, Palakkad, wherein the same is pending as C.C.No.98/2013. Annexure-1 in Crl.M.C.No. 5813/2014 is the copy of the final report/charge sheet filed before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, which has led to the institution of S.C.No.540/2013 on the file of the Sessions Court, Palakkad. Annexure-1 in Crl.M.C.No.5815/2014 is the copy of the final report/charge sheet filed before the Juvenile Justice Court, Palakkad, which has led to the pendency of C.C.No.98/2013 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Court, Palakkad.
3. It is stated that the defacto complainant and the accused persons are residing in the same locality and the complaint, which led to the alleged incidents, occurred due to some family disputes between the parties. Thereafter due to the intervention of mediators and respectable members of the locality including the Mahal Committee members, the family members of the petitioner and the respondents agreed to settle the entire disputes between the parties and the parties are now living peacefully and cordially, it is averred. Respondents 2 to 4 do not want to proceed with the matter and they have no objection in quashing final report/charge sheet in respect of S.C.No.540/2013 on the file of the Sessions Court, Palakkad (Annexure-1 in Crl.M.C.No.5813/2013). The respondents also do not have any objection in quashing the final report/charge sheet in respect of C.C.No. 98/2013 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Court, Palakkad (Annexure-1 in Crl.M.C.No. 5815/2014). Respondents 2 to 4 have filed separate affidavits dated 8.10.2014, produced as Annexures-2, 3 and 4 respectively in Crl.M.C.No.5813/2014 and 5815/2014. In those affidavits produced in these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases the above said contesting respondents have clearly stated that the complaint, which led to the institution of S.C.No.540/2013 of the Sessions Court and C.C.No. 98/2013 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Court, Palakkad had arisen due to misunderstanding and such disputes between the parties that the entire disputes between them have been resolved and that the said contesting respondents do not intend to proceed with the impugned criminal proceedings and that they have no objection in quashing the final report/charge sheet in respect of S.C.No. 540/2013 on the file of Sessions Court, Palakkad and C.C.No. 98/2013 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Court, Palakkad, as against the four accused persons concerned who are the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No. 5813/2014 and Crl.M.C.No.5815/2014. It is stated that the contesting respondents are now leading a peaceful and cordial life and that any further continuation of the criminal proceedings is unwarranted and that they have no objection in quashing of the aforementioned final report/charge sheet in respect of these cases as against the above said accused persons who are the petitioners in these cases. It is in the back ground these facts and circumstances that the petitioners have filed these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases with the above said prayers.
4. These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases have been admitted. Sri.C.Vinod Kumar has taken notice for respondents 2 to 4 in Crl.M.C.No.5813/2014 and respondents 2 to 4 in Crl.M.C.No. 5815/2014. The learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala in Crl.M.C.No.5813/2014 as well as for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala in Crl.M.C.No. 5815/2014.
5. Heard Sri. K.K.Dheerendrakrishnan., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases, Sri.C.Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 in these matters and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent- State in these cases.
6. 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, which has resulted the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case 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 case 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.
7. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 in these cases has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by respondents 2 to 4 in these cases that respondents 2 to 4 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 do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners as they have no grievance against them and that they will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections 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.
9. 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 to 4, 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.
10. 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 Secs. 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code.
11. 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 wastage 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.
12. In the result, these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are allowed. The impugned final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No. 586/2013 of Shornur Police Station, Palakkad, which has led to the institution of S.C.No.540/2013 on the file of the Sessions Court Palakkad (Annexure-1 in Crl.M.C.No.5813/2014) and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The impugned final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No. 586/2013 of Shornur Police Station, Palakkad, which has led to the institution of C.C.No. 98/2013 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Court, Palakkad (Annexure-1 in Crl.M.C.No. 5815/2014) and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Shornur Police Station.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge