This Crl.M.C. is filed by the sole accused in Crime No. 96 of 2014 of Vythiri Police Station, to quash the proceedings, on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.96 of 2014 of Vythiri Police Station, registered on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant, who is the 2nd respondent herein, alleging commission of offences under Sections 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd respondent is the Vice Principal of Oriental School of Hotel Management at Lakkidi in Wayanad District. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are the students of the institution and there was some dispute regarding the conduct of the institution and some incident happened on 07.03.2014. Respondents 2 to 4 sustained injuries in that incident. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The relationship between the parties have been restored. The matter has been settled due to the intervention of Mediators and well wishers of both parties. Defacto complainant and the injured do not want to proceed with the prosecution any more. Since some of the offences are none compoundable in nature and also it is in the crime stage, neither the police nor the court will entertain the compounding. So he has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:
“Hence it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleaded to quash Annexure-I First Information Report as against the petitioner in Crime No.96 of 2014 of Vythiri Police Station, in the interest of justice.”
3. Respondents 2 to 4 appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties. The relationship between the parties have been restored as before and they do not want to prosecute the petitioner. They have filed Annexures II to IV affidavits stating these facts. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction even if ultimately Final Report is filed.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioner and he has no criminal background, but opposed the application.
5. Heard both sides.
6. It is an admitted fact that the 2nd respondent is the Vice Principal of Oriental School of Hotel Management at Lakkidi in Wayanad District. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are students of that institution. It is also an admitted fact that on 07.03.2014, on account of some dispute in the institution, some incidents happened in which respondents 2 to 4 sustained some injuries. On the basis of the statement given by the 2nd respondent as Vice Principal of the institution, Annexure I, First Information Report was registered as Crime No.96 of 2014 of Vythiri Police Station against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The cordial relationship between the students have been restored as before on account of the settlement which was arrived at, due to the intervention of well wishers of both parties. Respondents 2 to 4 have filed Annexures II to IV affidavits stating that the matter has been settled and they have no grievances against the petitioner and that they do not want to prosecute the case further. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of any co-operation from the respondents in the matter of investigation in the case and even if ultimately Final Report is filed and the case is allowed to be prosecuted, conviction in such cases will be remote. Further it is not a matter of public interest. But, it is a private dispute arose between the parties in respect of the Management of the institution and that has been settled amicably between the parties.
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 that:
“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 other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings 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 an 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 the matter has been settled due to the intervention of Mediators and well wishers, the relationship between the parties have been restored as before and possibility of conviction will be remote in such circumstances, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings. In order to promote the relationship that has been restored on account of the settlement and also to promote the smooth functioning of the institution as well. So, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.96 of 2014 of the Vythiri Police Station in Wayanad District as against the petitioner is hereby quashed. The office is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kalpetta so as to inform the Vythiri Police Station for necessary further action in this regard immediately.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
DSV/23/05