Crl.M.C No.2607 was filed by accused persons in C.C No.453/2011 (Crime No. 3793/2010 of Aluva Police Station) of Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Aluva and Crl.M.C No.2444/2014 was filed by accused persons in C.C No.454/2011 (Crime No. 3794/2010 of Aluva Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Aluva to quash the proceedings as against them in view of the settlement u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The common case of the petitioners in both the cases was that there was an incident occurred on 28/2/2010 in which petitioners in both cases have involved and sustained injuries and on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent in Crl.M.C No.2607/2014, Crime No.3793/2010 was registered by Aluva police against the petitioners in that case alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. Similarly, on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent in Crl.M.C No.2444/2014 another case was registered as Crime No. 3794/2010 of the Aluva police against the petitioners in that case alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 324, 341, 323 and 427 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and both the cases were investigated and final reports were filed and were taken on file as C.C No.453/2011 and 454/2011 respectively on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Aluva and they are pending before that court. Now, the matter has been settled between the parties and the original relationship between the parties have been restored and both the petitioners who are the respective accused in the crimes did not want to prosecute each other on account of the settlement. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature they cannot file application before the concerned Magistrate Court. So they have no other remedy to approach this court seeking the following relief:
In Crl.M.C No.2607/2014, quash Annexure A3 charge sheet and all further proceedings in C.C No.453/2011 (ie, Crime No.3793/2010 of Aluva Police Station) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Aluva and, in Crl.M.C No.2444/2014, quash Annexure A1 charge sheet and all further proceedings in C.C No.454/2011 (ie, Crime No. 3794/2010 of Aluva Police Station) on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Aluva.
3. Respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.M.C No.2607/2014 and respondents 2 to 5 in Crl.M.C No.2444/2014 appeared through counsel and submitted that since the matter has been settled between the parties, they do not want to prosecute the cases further and they have filed affidavits before this court stating those facts as well.
4. The respective counsels appeared for the petitioners in both the cases submitted that in view of the settlement, there will not be any possibility of conviction and so they prayed for allowing the application.
5. The Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in both the cases submitted that except these two cases there are no other cases against the petitioners, but opposed the application.
6. Heard both sides and perused the documents produced.
7. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent in Crl.M.C No.2607/2014, Crime No.3793/2010 of Aluva Police Station was registered against the petitioners in that case and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C No.453/2011 and is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Aluva. Similarly, in respect of the same incident, on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent in Crl.M.C No.2444/2014 another case was registered as Crime No.3794/2010 of Aluva Police Station against the petitioners in that case and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C No. 454/2011 and is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Aluva. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. It is also seen from the allegations in both cases that the incident itself happened due to some misunderstanding regarding the parking of a motor cycle and both the parties sustained injuries in the incident and now the matter has been settled due to the intervention of mediators and well wishers of both parties and the relationship between them has been restored on account of the settlement. In view of the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties, there is no possibility of de facto complainant or witnesses in both cases support the case and no possibility of conviction also in such cases.
8. In the decision reported in Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012(4) KLT 108(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
“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 considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties in both cases and they do not want to pursue the prosecution against each other in view of the settlement and there is no possibility of any conviction on account of the settlement in both cases and allowing the cases to continue will only amount to wastage of judicial time, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners in both the cases in order to promote the settlement which restored the relationship between the parties. So, the applications are allowed and further proceedings in C.C No.453/2011(Crime No.3793/2010 of Aluva Police Station) as against the petitioners in Crl.M.C No.2607/2014 and in C.C No.454/2011 (Crime No.3794/2010 of Aluva Police Station) as against the petitioners in Crl.M.C No.2444/2014, both pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Aluva are hereby quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned immediately for necessary further action in the matter.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE vdv