The above Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.) seeking the invocation of the inherent powers conferred on this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure A1 final report/charge sheet in Crime No.348 of 2009 of Binanipuram Police Station, which has fled to the pendency of C.C No.995 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur and all further proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioners are accused 1 to 7 in Crime No.348 of 2009 of Binanipuram Police Station, Ernakulam district registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 294(b) r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in this case. 2. The gist of the allegations against the petitioners is that on 28.07.2009 at about 4:45 p.m when the 2nd respondent reached near the school ground at Kadungalloor Padi, he saw A1 and two other persons harassing respondents 4 and 5 herein and when he questioned the same, A1 pelted stone against him and as a result he sustained injury on his right leg and on seeing the same A4 rushed to the spot and assaulted 2nd respondent and thereupon the 3rd respondent and one Dileep came to the rescue of 2nd respondent and thereupon A4 beaten 4th respondent in his forehead and kicked 3rd respondent and when the people in that locality came to the spot the accused ran away from the spot and when respondents 2 to 4 proceeded to police station, petitioners 1, 3, 4 and 7 came in three motor cycles and attacked the 3rd respondent with a helmet and assaulted and kicked the 2nd respondent and Dileep and when people in the locality gathered hearing the hue and cry, thy left the place. It is on the basis of these allegations that the instant Crime No.348 of 2009 of Binanipuram Police Station was registered on 28.07.2009. After investigation, the police filed the impugned Annexure A1 final report/charge sheet in the aforementioned crime and the case is now pending as C.C 995 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur. It is stated that now the disputes between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 have been settled out of court and that in view of the settlement the respondents have no interest in prosecuting the impugned criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the case, Dileep, who is one of the witnesses, died as evident from Annexure A2 death certificate dated 28.11.2012. It is stated that petitioners are innocent of the allegations and that the entire disputes between petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 have been settled through the intervention of mediators and friends. Respondents 2 to 5 have no more grievances against the petitioners. Respondents 2 to 5 have filed separate affidavits dated 14.09.2014, 16.09.2014, 16.09.2014 and 16.09.2014 before this Court in this Crl.M.C stating the aforementioned facts further stating that since the entire disputes between the parties had been amicably settled there is no purpose in proceeding with the impugned criminal proceedings and that this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned Annexure A1 final report/charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C 995 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur in the interest of justice. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the aforementioned Crl.M.C has been filed.
3. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.T.K.Nazar has taken notice for the respondents 2 to 5 and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.
4. Heard Sri.R.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.T.K.Nazar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State of Kearla.
5. 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, which is resulted in the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case 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 case 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 financial, administrative and financial resources of the State.
6. Sri.Sri.T.K.Nazar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the respondents 2 to 5 that they have amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and that they have no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners as they have no grievance against them and that they will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that this court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard.
8. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature and not much element of public interest is involved. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5, it is clear to the court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the
petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure A1 final report/charge sheet in Crime No.348 of 2009 of Binanipuram Police Station which has led to the pendency of C.C No.995 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Binanipuram Police Station.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
Vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge