This is an application filed by the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in L.P.No.514/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Kollam to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.378/03 of Kundara Police Station alleging offences under Sections 452, 323, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act and after investigation, final report was filed against 4 accused persons including petitioners and it was originally taken on file as C.C.No.1316/03 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Kollam. Accused Nos.3 and 4 appeared and after trial, they were acquitted by the learned magistrate as per judgment dated 30.06.2007 and case against the present petitioners was split up and refiled as C.C.No.1011/2007. Since the petitioners did not appear even thereafter, the case was transferred to register of long pending cases and it is now pending as L.P.No.514/2007 before that court and non-bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioners. Now, the matter has been settled between the injured in this case as well. In view of the settlement and also in view of the fact that accused Nos.3 and 4 were already acquitted, no purpose will be served in keeping the case and no conviction will be possible in such cases. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they cannot file any application before that court. So, they have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:
“To quash Annexure 1 final report and all further proceedings in L.P.No.514 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Kollam by allowing this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.”
3. Respondents 1 and 2 who are the de facto complainant and injured in the case appeared through Counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties, even the case against the accused Nos.3 and 4 were also ended in acquittal as settled between the parties and they have filed affidavits before this court stating these facts.
4. The Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by allowing the case to proceed with.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners but they were absconding after the incident and not co-operated with the trial of the case.
6. Heard both sides.
7. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent as de facto complainant, a case was registered as Crime No.378/2003 of Kundara Police Station against 4 accused persons including the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 452, 323, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. It is also an admitted fact that after investigation, Annexure 1 Final report was filed and it was originally taken on file as C.C.No.1316/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Kollam and since the present petitioners did not appear, when the case was posted for evidence, the learned magistrate proceeded against accused Nos.3 and 4 alone and they were acquitted as per judgment dated 30.06.2007 which is evident from Annexure II proceedings paper of the court below. It is seen from the proceedings paper, only respondents 1 and 2 were examined and since they did not support the case of the prosecution, examination of other witnesses was dispensed with and they were acquitted and thereafter, the case against the present petitioners was split up and refiled as C.C.No.1011/2007 and since they did not appear, the same was transferred to register of long pending cases and now pending as L.P.No.514/2007 before that court. Now, the matter has been settled between the present petitioners, the de facto complainant and injured who were shown as respondents 1 and 2 in this petition. They have filed affidavits stating these facts as well. So, considering the circumstances that the matter has been settled between the parties and accused Nos.3 and 4 were already acquitted on the basis of the settlement between the parties after trial and some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature and allowing the case to proceed with will not serve any purpose and conviction in such cases is remote, this court feels that it is a matter where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked.
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 above decision and also in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by allowing the case to continue as conviction in such cases will be remote and on account of the settlement, original relationship between the parties have been restored, this court feels that the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings.
So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in L.P.No.514/2007 (Crime No.378/03 of Kundara Police Station) now pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Kollam as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately for necessary further action.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge “L.P.No.514/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Kollam” occurring in the 2nd and 3rd lines of paragraph No.1, 25th and 26th lines of paragraph No.2 and 9th, 10th and 11th lines of paragraph No.9 of the order dated 28.05.2014 in Crl.M.C.No.2759/2014 is corrected and substituted as “L.P.No.514/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No-1, Kollam, vide order dated 17.6.2014 in Crl.M.A.No.5473/2014 in Crl.M.C.No.2759/2014.
Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)