1.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the case now pending as L.P.No.5 of 2005 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class - II, Neyyatinkara. He has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the matter has been settled with the de facto complainant by means of a compromise.
2.The aforesaid case has arisen from crime No.117 of 2000 registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC.
3.The prosecution allegation is that on 25.10.2000, the petitioner along with another person wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and fisted him causing injuries. Crl.M.C. No.3238 of 2016 -2- Though in the FIR a person who could be identified at sight was arrayed as the 2nd accused, he was removed at the time of submitting the final report.
4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5.It is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the rival parties have decided to give a quietus to all their subsisting disputes. After much deliberations amongst themselves and at the intervention of persons who are respected by both parties, they have decided to bury the past and turn a new leaf. There is no acrimony between the parties at present and they are living in peace and harmony. To bring on record the settlement, the 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit in which he affirms in unmistakable terms his desire to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh.
6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits Crl.M.C. No.3238 of 2016 -3- that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents.
7.I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record.
8.It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.
9.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the Crl.M.C. No.3238 of 2016 -4- extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT
108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and other cases.
In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in L.P.No.5 of 2005 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class - II, Neyyatinkara shall stand quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE kp/-27.6.16