---------- This is an application filed by the accused persons in CC.No.918 of 2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Perinthalmanna 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 petitioners were charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Melatur police station in Crime No.171 of 2013 of that police station which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as defacto complainant alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation final report was filed and it was taken on file as CC.No.918 of 2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No.II Perinthalmanna. The petitioners and the defacto complainant were friends and due to the intervention of mediators and well wishers, the matters has been settled between the parties and the defacto complainant and injured who were shown as respondents 2 to 4 do not want to prosecute the case any longer as their relationship has been restored. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they could not file the application before the Court below. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:-
To quash Annexure-A and all further proceedings in CC.No.918 of 2013 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District.
3. Respondents 2 to 4 who are the defacto complainant and the injured in the case appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not want to prosecute the petitioenrs who are their friends and the incident happened due to some misunderstanding and now their relationship has been restored. They have filed affidavits stating these facts.
4. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and so they prayed for allowing the application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, as directed by this Court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners but opposed the application on the ground that dangerous weapons were used in the commission of the crime.
6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as defacto complainant Crime No.171 of 2013 of Melatur police station was registered by hat police officials against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that after investigation, final report was filed and it is now pending as CC.No.918 of 2013 pending before the judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Perinthalmanna. It is alleged in the petition and also the affidavits filed by the respondents 2 and 4 that they were friends and incident happened due to some misunderstanding and now the matter has been settled between them on account of intervention of well wishers of both parties. On account of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction as they will not support the case of the prosecution even if trial is allowed to continue. Further it cannot be said that it is a incident of public interest but it is a incident happened between friends due to some misunderstanding which due to the intervention of mediators later settled and their relationship has been restored?
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.”
7. In view of the dictum laid on in the above decision and also considering the fact that it is a dispute due to misunderstanding between friends that resulted in incident which later settled due to the intervention of well wishers of both parties and their relationship has been restored to the original position and possibility of conviction in such cases is remote and allowing the case 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 Criminal Procedure Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement and restoration of friendship between the parties and pendency of this case should not be hurdle for the same.
So the application is allowed and further proceedings in CC.No.918 of 2013 (Crime No.171 of 2013 of Melatur police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Perinthalmanna as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court, immediately.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV