This is an application filed by the petitioners who are the accused in Crime No.699/2013 of Vidyanagar Police Station of Kasaragod District to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused numbers 1 to 3 in Crime No.699/2013 of Vidyanagar Police Station registered against the petitioners on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent/de-facto complainant alleging commission of offences under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioners and the accused are students. Due to some misunderstanding, they were on enemical terms and now the matter has been settled between the parties and old relationship has been restored. The de facto complainant has no grievance against the petitioners now and he does not want to prosecute the petitioners in view of the settlement. Since the offences alleged are of non compoundable nature and also it is in the Crime stage, neither the police nor the court will drop further proceedings in view of the settlement. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:
to call for records of the entire proceedings in FIR in Crime No.699/2013 of the Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragod and quash the same.
3. The second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of well wishers and friends of the parties and their friendship has been restored as before and he does not want to prosecute the petitioners any longer. He had also filed an affidavit stating these facts.
4. The Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of he settlement the possibility of conviction in such cases is very remote. So he 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 it is an offence against a down trodden society, it cannot be quashed at this stage.
6. Heard both sides.
7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners and second respondent are students. It is also an admitted fact that in respect of incident happened on a faithful day on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent, Annexure I FIR was registered as Crime No. 699/2013 of Vidyanagar Police Station of Kasaragod District against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(x)of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegation was that the second respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste and the petitioners have called his caste name with a view to humiliate him while they were playing foot ball. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. It is true that Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been enacted by the Parliament to protect the interest of the persons belonging those communities from unnecessary exploitation by the upper class people. It is seen from the allegation in the First Information Report itself that the incident occurred at the time when both the petitioners and second respondent were playing foot ball in the foot ball ground. However, the petitioners and second respondent were students even if any incident happened, that would happened without knowing the consequences of the their act due to their tender age. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and the old relationship between the petitioners and second respondent has been restored. The settlement has been effected due to the intervention of friends and well wishers of both parties. On account of the settlement the relationship between two communities have been restored. In view of the settlement, neither the de facto complainant nor his witnesses are likely to support the investigating officer to proceed with the investigation and if at all final report is filed later on the basis of the evidence so far collected, it is not likely to end in conviction as they will not support the case of prosecution.
8. In the decision reported 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 case, and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties both the petitioners and the second respondent were students, and their old relationship and friendship has been restored on account of the settlement and no purpose will be served by allowing the case to continue in view of the settlement, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement and restoration of harmony between two community people and also considering the fact that both the petitioners and the second respondent were students at the time when the incident alleged to have been happened as well as the pendency of the case should not be an hurdle for their harmony that has been restored on account of the settlement.
So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod so as to inform the same to the concerned Police Station for further necessary action in this regard.
Sd/-K.RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE MJL