This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the 3rd accused in C.C. No. 127/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Nedumangad, to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that he is the 3rd accused in C.C. No. 127/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Nedumangad. The case was registered as Crime No.339/2010 of Venjaramoodu Police Station on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant against the petitioner and three others alleging offenses punishable under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation, Annexure A final report was filed and the case was originally taken on file as C.C.No.47/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Nedumangad. While so, the matter has been settled between the parties. The accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 along with this petitioner moved this Court for quashing the proceedings as Crl.M.C. 3671/2012 and this Court by Annexure E order quashed the proceedings as against them on the basis of the settlement. Since the petitioner did not comply with the interim direction, this Court quashed the proceedings against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 alone. After quashing the proceedings as against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, the case against the present petitioner was re filed as C.C No.127/2013. Now it is pending before the same court. The matter has been settled between the petitioner and the injured who are shown as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in this petition. Since some of the offence are non compoundable in nature, they cannot 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 final report, pending as C.C.No.127/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -I, Nedumangad”
3. The respondents 2 to 4 appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and they have filed Annexures B, C, and D affidavits and in view of the settlement they do not want to proceed with the case against the petitioner also. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the case against the other accused persons has been quashed by this Court as per Annexure E order and in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served in keeping the case as well.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code has been incorporated.
5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by 2nd respondent, Crime No. 339/2010 of Venjaramoodu Police Station was registered against the petitioner and three others alleging offences under Sections 323, 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal code and after investigation, Annexure A final report was filed and it was taken on file originally as C.C.No.47/2011 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Nedumangad. While so, the matter has been settled between the parties. The accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 along with the petitioner had filed Crl.M.C.No.3671/2012 before this Court and this Court by Annexure E order quashed the proceedings as against accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 alone as this petitioner could not surrender and take bail as directed by this Court and it is thereafter the case against the present petitioner was refiled as C.C.No.127/2013. Now the matter has been settled between the present petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 as well. Further it is also seen from the allegations that the incident happened in the college in connection with the festival conducted there. Now after the settlement original relationship has been restored between them. Further case against other accused persons has been already quashed by this Court as well. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction in such cases. It cannot be said to be a case of public interest, but happened in the college campus due to some mis understanding in the conduct of function in the college.
6. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [(2012(4)KLT 108(SC)], it has been 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 down in the above decision and and also considering the fact that the case against other accused persons has already been quashed and this case also settled between the injured persons and the petitioner and no possibility of conviction in view of the settlement and relationship has been restored between the parties on account of the settlement, this Court feels that this is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings.
So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.127/2013 (Crime No.339/2010 of Venjaramoodu Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Nedumangad as against the petitioner is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-K.RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE MJL