This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioners in C.C.No.523/2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, which was originated on the basis of a case registered as Crime No.28/2013 of Nileshwar Police Station, on the basis of the statement given by the 2nd respondent/ defacto-complainant, alleging offences under Section 341, 323, 324, 506(i) and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. After investigation, Annexure-A1 final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.523/2013 and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. On account of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well. The defacto- complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner on account of the settlement. Since some of the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature, they could not file the application before the court below. So the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following reliefs:
“In view of the above grounds and the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.523 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg”.
4. The 2nd respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties and he does not want to prosecute the petitioners and the settlement itself was arrived at due to the intervention of community leaders of the locality to bring harmony among the members of the community and he filed Annexure-A2 affidavit stating these facts.
5. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that, they went there to pacify the altercation between two groups of INL League Party and in that altercation occurred and the incident happened and now the matter has been settled. So he prayed for allowing the application.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this Court, submitted that, except this case, there is no other case pending against the petitioners but opposed the application on the ground that the incident happened due to some political rivalry.
7. It is an admitted fact that, petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 28/2013 of Nileshwar police station. It was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 2nd respondent and after investigation Annexure-A1 final report was filed and it is now pending as C.C.No.523/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. It is also seen from the gist of the allegations in Annexure-A1 that, when there was some altercation going on between the workers of Indian National League Party and on seeing this, they went there to pacify them and in that process, some incident happened and the crime has registered. Now due to the intervention of community leaders and others and well-wishers of both parties, the matter has been settled between the parties and harmony has been restored between them. There is nothing alleged in the final report that, the present petitioners have got any political affinity towards any party except stating that, it was done due to some political animosity. However, in view of the settlement there is no possibility of any conviction as the witnesses are not going to support the case of the prosecution. Further it is a fight between two groups of the same community. People are forgetting the fact that, religion is intended for protecting the interest of the community and they should never be overcome by the religion so as to bring hatredness among members of the same community. They are expected to follow the preachings of the religion and they are not expected to use the same as a weapon to bring hatredness among the members of the community itself. That is now being going on. However, considering the fact that the community leaders have taken a role to pacify these two groups and bring harmony among the community people, this court with hope and belief that wisdom will fall on these people and they will not repeat such things in future so as to cause tranquility among the community people itself.
8. Further in the decision reported in in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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.”
9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that it is a clash between the same community people and on account of the settlement harmony has been brought in among the community people due to the intervention of community leaders and others and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case, as conviction in such cases will be remote and it will only a wastage of judicial time, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote settlement, which resulted in harmony among the community people and with the hope and belief that they will not repeat the same in future to cause nuisance within the community people as such.
So this criminal, miscellaneous case is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.523/2013 pending before the Judicial First class Magistrate's Court – II, Hosdurg, as against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately for necessary further action.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss