This is an application filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.861/14 (third accused in Crime No.391/2010 of Hosdurg Police Station) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Hosdurg for quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.861/14 now pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Hosdurg. The case was originated on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant who is the first respondent herein against the petitioner and two others as Crime No.391/2010 of Hosdurg police station alleging offences under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and the case was originally taken as file as C.C.No.805/2010. Since the present petitioner did not appear, the learned magistrate proceeded the case as against accused Nos.1 and 2 and after trial, they were acquitted and the case against the present petitioner was split up and refiled as C.C.No.861/2014 and the same is now pending before that court. Respondents 1 and 2 are the injured in the case. Now, the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2. Since the offence is non-compoundable, they cannot file an application before the court below for record compounding. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well in view of the settlement and conviction will be remote in such cases. So, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:
“To call for the records in CC 861/14 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg and quash all the proceedings against the petitioner.”
3. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared though Counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and they have no grievance against the petitioner now and they have filed Annexure 2 affidavit stating these facts.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court submitted that, except this case, there is no other case against the petitioner and he has no criminal background but opposed the application.
6. Heard both sides.
7. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent herein as de facto complainant, Hosdurg police has registered Annexure I First Information Report as Crime No.391/10 of that police station against the petitioner and two others alleging offences under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was shown as third accused in the case. It is also an admitted fact that after investigation, the investigating officer filed the final report and the case was originally taken as file as C.C.No.805/10 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Hosdurg. It is alleged in the petition that accused Nos.1 and 2 were tried and they were acquitted as the respondents 1 and 2 have settled the claim with them also. It is also an admitted fact that case against the present petitioner was split up and refiled as C.C.No.861/14 and the same is pending before that court. The matter has been settled between the parties in view of the settlement and also in view of the fact that other accused persons were acquitted on the basis of the settlement earlier, there is no possibility of conviction being entered against the present petitioner arises. Further, on account of the settlement, the relationship between the parties have been restored. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed affidavit stating that the matter has been settled and they have no grievance against the present petitioner as well. The fact that case against accused Nos.1 and 2 was settled and they were acquitted was also mentioned in the affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2.
8. Further, in the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], it is 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.”
9. In view of the dictum laid down in the decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and other accused persons were were already acquitted after trial on the basis of the settlement and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as conviction in such cases will be remote and on account of the settlement, the friendship between the parties have been restored, this court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedre has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement and restoration of relationship between the parties and the pendency of this case will not be a hurdle for the same.
10. So, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.861/14 (Crime No.391/2010 of Hosdurg Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Hosdurg as against the petitioner is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge