Crl.M.C.No.1918/2014 was filed by accused No.26 in Crime No.418/2014 and sole accused in L.P.No.9/2011 of Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara while Crl.M.C.No.1920/2014 was filed by accused Nos.5, 7, 11, 16, 17,19, 20, 21, 24, 27 and 28 in the same crime and arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 11 in L.P.68/2009 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara and Crl.M.C.No.1921/2014 was filed by accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 23, 6 and 25 in the same crime and arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 8 in S.C.No.191/2014 of Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara for quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in all these cases that the petitioners in all these cases are accused Nos.2 to 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23 to 28 in Crime No.418/2004 of Vatakara Police Station of Kozhikode District alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. After investigation, final report was filed and it was originally taken on file as C.P.No.122/2006 and the case against accused Nos. 1, 2 to 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 to 15, 18, 22, 23, 25 and 29 were committed to the Sessions Court as per orders in C.P.01/2007, C.P.No.122/2006, C.P.No.31/2011, C.P.2/11 and C.P.No.8/2013 and they were independently taken cognizance by the Sessions Court by providing separate Sessions Case number and made over to Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara and all these cases were clubbed by the Assistant Sessions Judge in S.C.No.186/2007 arraying those accused persons as accused Nos.1 to 17, out of them accused Nos.4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 & 17 in that rank appeared and they were acquitted by Annexure IV Judgment after trial. So, case against accused who were arrayed with rank 1 to 3, 5, 7, 10, 13 & 16 who are the petitioners in Crl.M.C.1921/2014 was split up and refiled as S.C.No.191/2014. The original accused Nos.5, 7, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27 and 28 who are petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1920/2014 were absconding and so the case against them was split up by the learned magistrate and it was transferred to register of long pending cases and now pending as L.P.No.68/2009 showing them as accused Nos.1 to 11. Since 26th accused did not appear, the case against him was split up and transferred to register of long pending cases by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Vatakara and it is now pending as L.P.No.9/2011. The matter has been now settled between the de facto complainant and the petitioners in all these cases. The case against original accused Nos.1, 8, 10, 13 to 15, 18, 22 & 29 was ended in acquittal on the ground that the prosecution was not able to establish the case and the presence of those accused at the place of occurrence could not be established by the witnesses examined in that case. Now, the de facto complainant namely the owner of the hospital had compromised the matter with all the remaining accused persons and submitted that he does not want to prosecute against any of the accused persons. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they cannot file application before the concerned court for compounding. So, they have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following reliefs:
“1) To quash Annexure-2 charge pending before the Asst. Sessions Court, Vatakara as L.P.No.9/2011 against the petitioner.
2) To quash Annexure-2 charge pending before the JFCM-I, Vatakara as L.P.No.68/2009 against the petitioners.
3) To quash Annexure-2 charge pending before the Asst. Sessions Court, Vatakara as S.C.No.191/2014 against the petitioners.
3. Second respondent in all these cases appeared through Counsel and submitted that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings as case against some of the accused persons have ended in acquittal on the ground of settlement with them and he could not identify the real persons involved as well. He had also stated that he had filed separate affidavits in all those cases stating these facts.
4. The Counsel for the petitioners in all these cases submitted that in view of the settlement and also considering the fact that case against some of the accused persons have ended in acquittal, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case and it will be only wastage of judicial time.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners in all these cases, but considering the nature of incident and gravity of the offence alleged, it is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings.
6. Heard both sides.
7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners in these cases along with others were arrayed as accused in Crime No.418/04 of Vatakara police station alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed and it was originally taken as C.P.No.122/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara and case against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1921/2014 and accused Nos.1, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 22 & 29 in Crime No.418/2004 was committed to the Sessions Court on several occasions and they were later clubbed together with S.C.No.186/07 and these persons were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 17 in that case and accused Nos.4, 6, 8, 9, 11,12, 14, 15 & 17 arrayed in that case were tried and acquitted by Annexure IV Judgment on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the crime and the de facto complainant had no complaint against the accused persons or in respect of the incident itself.
8. The case against the other accused persons namely., petitioners in Crl.M.C.1921/2014 was split up and refiled as S.C.No.191/14 and pending before that court. Similarly, the case against accused No.26 was committed to Sessions Court and thereafter, he absconded and so the case against him was transferred to register of long pending case as L.P.No.09/11 and it was pending before Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara. The case against other accused persons namely 5, 7, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28 who are petitioners in Crl.M.C.1920/2014 is now pending as L.P.No.68/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara. Now, the matter has been settled once for all between the parties and the de facto complainant had filed separate affidavits in all these cases stating that the matter has been settled between all the petitioners and himself and he have no grievance against any of the accused persons who were arrayed as accused in the case. It is also seen from the final report that the person against whom attempt for commission of murder was not present. But, however, Section 307 of Indian Penal Code was also incorporated. However, considering the fact that some of the accused persons have already been tried and acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove identity of the accused persons as the persons who committed the crime and even the person who were arrested from that spot was also not identified by the witnesses as the person who had involved in the crime, no purpose will be served by allowing the case to continue as the substratum of the main case itself has been shattered in the case in which some of the accused persons were acquitted as per Annexure IV Judgment. So, allowing these cases to continue will only will be a wastage of judicial time as well.
9. Further, 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.”
10. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that some of the accused persons have been tried and acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of the accused persons and none of the witnesses had identified any of the accused persons as the persons involved in the crime while examined in that case and now, the matter has been settled between the parties and the owner of the hospital has no grievance against the petitioners on whose complaint the case was registered and there was no injured persons in the case and allowing the case to continue will be only a wastage of judicial time, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings.
So, the application is allowed and the case against accused No.26 in Crime No.418/2004 in L.P.No.9/2011 pending before Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara, case against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1920/2014 who are accused Nos.5, 7, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27 & 28 in the above crime and shown as accused Nos.1 to 11 in L.P.No.68/2009 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara and case against petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1921/2014 who are the accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 9, 12, Crl.M.C.No.1918/2014 & connected cases : 10 :
23, 6 & 25 in the above crime and arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 8 in S.C.No.191/2014 of Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara are quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned courts immediately for necessary further action in this regard.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge