The petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No.496 of 2007 of Pandalam Police Station registered for offences alleged under Sections 323, 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation submitted the impugned Annexure A final report/charge sheet in the aforementioned crime which has now led to the pendency of the Sessions Case No.545 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. 2. The prosecution allegation as made out in the impugned Annexure A final report/charge sheet is that on 18.08.2007 at about 10 a.m at Nediyakala in Mezhuveli Village, the petitioners/accused persons had jointly attacked the contesting respondents 1 and 2 (de facto complainants (CW1 and CW2)) due to the prior animosity towards them in connection with a family dispute and thereby the contesting respondents 1 and 2 (CW1 & 2) sustained injuries and that the accused have thus committed the aforementioned offences. After the submission of the impugned Annexure A final report/charge sheet in the above said crime, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta and the case is pending before that court as S.C No.545 of 2012. It is stated that now consequent to the intervention of well wishers the entire dispute between the petitioners and the de facto complainant/injured/respondents 1 and 2 have been settled. Annexures B and C are the respective affidavits sworn to by the contesting respondents 1 and 2 on 30.08.2014 stating the above aspects wherein it is further stated that the subject matter in relation to the above said crime has been settled by the parties entering into a compromise and that the said respondents are not interested to proceed any further with the impugned criminal proceedings and that they have no objection in quashing the impugned final report/charge sheet in the aforementioned crime which has led to the pendency of S.C No545 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta and that in case the aforementioned impugned criminal proceedings are quashed by this Court, they will not raise any objection against that in future etc. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the petitioners have filed the above captioned Crl.M.C seeking invocation of the inherent powers conferred on this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure A final report/charge sheet in the impugned Crime No.496 of 2007 of Pandalam Police Station, which has led to the pendency of S.C No.545 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings arising therefrom.
3. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.Johnson Varikkappallil has taken notice for the 1st and 2nd respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 3rd respondent-State of Kerala.
4. Heard Sri.Ajeesh.K.Sasi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Johnson Varikkappallil, learned counsel appearing for 1st and 2nd respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 3rd respondent-State of Kearla.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, which is resulted in the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the case have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the financial, administrative and financial resources of the State.
6. Sri.Johnson Varikkappallil, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by them that they have amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and that they have no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that this court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard.
8. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature and not much element of public interest is involved. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents, it is clear to the court that the injured/victims/defacto complainants have no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [ See SCC (Cri)]:
“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR 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..
It is further held as follows:-
“......... 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 cases, 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 the decision reported in the case Yogendra Yadav & others v. The State of Jharkhand & another reported in 2014 (8) Scale 634 = III (2014) Current Criminal Reports CCR 426 (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows:
“When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them”.
The Apex Court in the above case was dealing with a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure A final report/charge sheet in the impugned Crime No.496 of 2007 of Pandalam Police Station which has led to the pendency of S.C No.545 of 2012 on the file of The Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Pandalam Police Station.
vdv //True copy// P.A to Judge Sd/- AL EXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE