This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.247/204 of Aranmula police station to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.247/2014 of Aranmula police station, which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 1st respondent as the defacto-complainant, alleging offences under Section 452, 323, 324, 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Now the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of well-wishers and friends. On account of the settlement, the original relationship has been restored and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well. The defacto- complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners on account of the settlement. Since some of the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature, they could not file the application for compounding before the court below. Further, since it is in the crime stage, neither the police nor the court will accept compounding at this stage as well. So the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief:
“For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing it is most respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in Crime No.247/2014 of Aranmula police station, on the file of the JFMC, No.I, Pathanamthitta for offences under Section. 452, 323, 324, 294(b) r/w 34 of the I.P.C”.
3. First respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties and he does not want to prosecute the petitioners and the settlement itself was arrayed at due to the intervention of well-wishers of both parties. Further he had filed affidavit stating these facts as well.
4. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction, so he prayed for allowing the application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this Court, submitted that, except this case, there is no other case against the petitioners but opposed the application on the ground that petitioners 2 to 4 are juvenile and the case against them was split up and final report was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Pathanamthitta, and as against for first petitioner final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta.
6. It is an admitted fact that, petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 247/2014 of Aranmula police station, which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 1st respondent against the petitioners alleging offences under Section 452, 323, 324, 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also gathered from the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and also report obtained from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, that since petitioners 2 to 4 were juveniles, case against them was split up and split charge sheet was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Pathanamthitta, and final report against first petitioner was filed before that court on 10.06.2014. It is also seen from the affidavit that, the parties are known to each other and on account of the settlement their old relationship has been restored. On account of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction and proceeding of the case will only amount to wastage of judicial time. Further, it cannot be said to be an incident of public interest as well, as it is a private dispute between neighbors resulted in registration of crime and filing of final report, in which juveniles also involved.
7. Further in the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [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, a private dispute has been resulted in registration of crime and filing of final report and petitioners 2 to 4 were juveniles and due to the intervention of mediators and well-wishers, the entire dispute between the parties have been settled and original relationship has been restored and the possibility of conviction will be remote in view of the settlement, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote settlement which resulted in harmony between the parties and pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same.
So this criminal, miscellaneous case is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.274/2014 of Aranmula police station, which is now pending, (after filing of the final report) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta and Juvenile Justice Board, Pathanamthitta, as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta and also to the Juvenile Justice Board, Pathanamthitta, for necessary further action in this regard.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss