The petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No.792/2013 of Pathanapuram Police Station alleging offences under Sections 109, 452, 366 and 34 of the IPC based on a complaint of the 2nd respondent's father. Annexure-A1 is the copy of the FIR in the aforementioned Crime and after investigation the police submitted Annexure-A3 Final Report/Charge Sheet in the aforementioned Crime, which is now pending as C.P.No.134/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur. It is clearly stated in Annexure-A1 FIR that the 2nd respondent was aged 18 years at the time of the occurrence on 27.5.2013. The gist of the prosecution case is that the 1st petitioner with an intention to have illicit intercourse with the 2nd respondent, kidnapped her through 2nd and 3rd petitioners (who are the 1st petitioner's friends), on 27.5.2013 at about 7:00 pm and that the 1st petitioner had hired a Maruthi Alto Car Taxi and entrusted it to 2nd and 3rd petitioners and they came to the 2nd respondent's parental house and kidnapped her against her will. It is stated by the petitioners that though initially the 2nd respondent was caught by the police on 27.5.2013 and the police had prepared Annexure-A2 deposition and Medical Certificate as per Annexure-A4. It is certified in Annexure-A4 Medical Certificate dated 28.5.2013 that there is no evidence of any recent sexual act and there is no evidence of any signs of resistance, after examining the 2nd respondent. It is further stated in Annexure-A4 Medical Certificate that the 2nd respondent has stated before the Doctor that she was having a love affair with one Rahul for the last three years and that one month ago she had physical relationship with him. It appears that it is the 1st petitioner (Rahul), who is referred to in Annexure-A4 as stated above. The 2nd respondent has filed Annexure-A5 affidavit dated 29.5.2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur stating that she has never raised such an allegation as in Annexure-A2 against the petitioners and further submitted that the parents of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent have given their consent to the marriage between the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner and that she has not given the statements referred to in Annexure-A2 and that none of the petitioners have committed any criminal offence against her etc. It is further stated that the petitioners and 2nd respondent and their families are now having cordial relationship and that the above referred incident happened in a provocation and that after the intervention of the mediators, the cordial relationship have been restored between the families. It is stated in Annexure-A5 that the aforementioned crime was lodged under false impression and that no such kidnapping has happened as alleged and that the 2nd respondent has already filed an affidavit before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned as per Annexure-A5 and that the 2nd respondent has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and that the relationship between the parties have been restored with the help of mediators and that the parties are not intending to adduce any evidence in the above criminal case etc. In Annexure-A5 the defacto complainant has also stated that after the intervention of the family members of the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent, it has been decided that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent should be solemnised within one year. The 2nd respondent-defacto complainant has sworn to an affidavit dated 18.9.2014 marked as Annexure-A6 before this Court in this Crl.M.C. It is stated therein by the 2nd respondent that the disputes between the parties have been settled and that she does not intend to proceed with the case and give evidence in this matter etc. and has reiterated the earlier submissions. It is in the conspectus of these facts and circumstances that the petitioners have filed this Crl.M.C with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure-A3 Final Report/Charge Sheet filed in the impugned Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.792/2013 of Pathanapuram Police Station, which has led to the institution of C.P.No.134/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur and all further proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The Crl.M.C has been admitted and Smt.Devika Rani has taken notice for the 2nd respondent and learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1st respondent.
3. Heard Smt.T.S.Maya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Devika Rani for the 2nd respondent and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent- State.
4. 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, 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 controversy 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.
5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 2nd respondent that in view of the aforementioned aspects, the 2nd respondent does not wish to proceed with the impugned criminal proceedings in any manner and that continuation of the proceedings would only result in mere disharmony as the defacto complainant has clearly stated that she has no complaint against the petitioners and that the impugned criminal proceedings may be quashed. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has also stated that the 2nd respondent has no grievance against the petitioners and that she does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and that she will not raise any dispute or complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings is allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor was also heard who has submitted that this Court may consider the prayer in the case in the light of law well settled by the court in this regard.
7. After having carefully considered the case of the parties, it is noted that the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant had attained the age of 18 years as on the date of occurrence (27.5.2013) as clearly shown in impugned Annexure-A1 FIR. The main allegations in the impugned criminal proceedings are under Section 366 Indian Penal Code in respect of kidnapping a woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced to seduced ti illicit intercourse etc. On a perusal of Annexures A1 & A3, it can be seen that there are no allegations of committing any sexual intercourse against her will or without the consent etc, involving the commission of offence under Section 375 (rape). It is clearly certified in Annexure-A4 Medical Certificate that there is no evidence of recent sexual act and there is no evidence of any signs of resistance, after examination of the 2nd respondent by the Doctor. Further it is certified in Annexure-A4 Medical Certificate dated 28.5.2013, issued in respect of the impugned crime, that the 2nd respondent has stated that she was in love with one Rahul (presumably the 1st petitioner) as stated above for the last three years and that she had physical relationship with him about one month back. It is further stated by the defacto complainant in Annexure-A5 affidavit dated 29.5.2013 filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur that accused has not committed any activities in relation to alleged crime and that the parents of the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent have now agreed for marriage between the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that there was a love affair between the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent at the time of the commission of alleged crime and that the incidents should be seen and appreciated in the light of this crucial factual aspects. There are no allegations of commission of rape in the instant case, as in Annexure-A4 Medical Certificate dated 28.5.2013 issued in the said crime, it has clearly stated that there is no evidence of recent sexual act and there is no evidence of any signs of resistance etc. Annexure-A4 also clearly shows that the 2nd respondent has stated that she was in love with the 1st petitioner for the last three years and in Annexure-A5 affidavit also the 2nd respondent has reiterated that families of the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent have also agreed to their marriage. Therefore, this incident could have happened due to a rash and brash attitude shown by the petitioners. The 1st petitioner is aged 21 years, 2nd petitioner 22 years and the 3rd petitioner is 22 years. The 2nd respondent-defacto complainant is now aged 19 years. The 2nd respondent seems to have voluntarily gone along with the 1st petitioner and she was aged 18 years as on the date of occurrence of the incident.
Therefore, in the light of Annexure-A6 and in the light of affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent, the prayer could be favourably considered.
8. 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 Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
9. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, after surveying many decisions of the court on the point, has categorically held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or (iii) to do real, complete and substantial justice. The Supreme Court in the case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 = (1992) SCC (Cri) 426 as laid down the parameters of quashing the Crl.M.C. In the case Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Utharanchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, the Apex Court has held that every High Court has the inherent power to “ex debito justitiae” to do real, complete and substantial justice for the administration of which the court exists or to prevent the abuse of process of court. In Shaji @ Pappu v. Radhika and another reported in 2011 (4) KHC 616 (SC), the Supreme Court while quashing the impugned FIR therein lodged for offences under Sections 354 and 394 IPC has held that even if an offence is non- compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C, the High Court can still, in exercise of its inherent powers, quash the proceedings in a case where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. In the case Saliha K.N. v. Abdulla & others reported in 2013 (1) KHC 772, this Court while quashing the FIR lodged under Sections 324 and 308 IPC has held that the courts have and owe a duty to redeem the parties from fighting against each other since the matter is settled and so, the impugned proceedings can be quashed.
10. Viewing the facts and circumstances in this case in the frame work of the legal principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions cited above, this Court is of the considered opinion that discretion could be exercised in this case, for reasons more than one. Firstly, there are no allegations of commission of offence of rape and Annexure-A4 medical certificate would clearly show that there is no evidence of any recent sexual act and there is no evidence of any signs of resistance. Annexure-A4 medical certificate and Annexure- A5 affidavit would also show that it is the specific case of the 2nd respondent, even immediately after the occurrence of the incident, that she was in love with the 1st petitioner and that there are even proposals of the families for their marriage. So, the incident would have occurred due to the rashness and brashness shown by the petitioners who are aged hardly in their early 20's, due to the over zealousness in the love affair between the 1st petitioner, who was aged 21 years and the 2nd respondent, aged 18 years at the time of occurrence of the incident. In view of the specific affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent and in view of Annexure-A5 affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent before the court below, chances of recording of any conviction appears to be remote. Moreover, this Court is of the considered opinion that redeeming these youngsters from long drawn process of the trial, would only subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that discretion vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the impugned proceedings could be exercised in the facts of this case.
Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is allowed. Impugned Annexure-A3 Final Report/Charge Sheet filed in Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.792/2013 of Pathanapuram Police Station which has led to the institution of C.P.No.134/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioner shall forward certified copies of this order to the Station House Officer, Pathanapuram Police Station and to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.