The petitioners herein are the accused in Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.927/2014 of Mattannur Police Station in Kannur district, registered for offences punishable under Secs. 452, 323, 324, 354, 427 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC. Annexure-1 crime was registered on 23.9.2014 by the Police on the basis of the first information statement furnished by the 2nd respondent herein (defacto complainant) stating that she and her husband (3rd respondent) sustained injuries in the incident, which occurred on 21.9.2014 at 8.30 p.m. at their residence. That the petitioners herein, who are residing in the neighbourhood of respondent Nos.2 and 3, trespassed into the residence of 2nd and 3rd respondents on 21.9.2014 at about 8.30 p.m. and inflicted injuries on the body of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and thereby committed the above said offences and that they have sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 25,000/.- etc. It is stated that the petitioners, who are the accused, are neighbours of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, who are defacto complainants and the injured. It is further stated that the above said impugned crime was registered due to some misunderstandings between the two families in connection with the marriage function of the 2nd petitioner solemnized recently. Thereafter some respectable mediators, family members and well wishers of the parties mediated the disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd and 3rd respondents, whereby the 2nd and 3rd respondents have agreed to terminate the impugned criminal proceedings. The 2nd and 3rd respondents have sworn to affidavit dated 14.10.2014, produced as Annexure-II in this Crl.M.C., stating the above aspects and further stating that the matters have been amicably settled as above said and that the petitioners had no intention to inflict injuries on them or to commit any offence of trespass, mischief, assault or use of criminal force with the intend to outrage the modesty of the 2nd respondent and that they have sustained simple injuries during the scuffle occurred in the said incident and that they are willing to terminate the impugned criminal proceedings and that the disputes between the parties are purely personal in nature and it has nothing to do with the peace and tranquility of the area or society at large and that there is no necessity to continue any further the impugned criminal proceedings and that there is no prospect of the successful prosecution and conviction of the petitioners as the petitioners had no intention to commit any offence and that the entry of the petitioners to their residence and subsequent incidents occurred there, was not at all pre-mediated. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the petitioners have filed the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.927/2014 of Mattannur Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Smt.M.M.Deepa, Advocate has taken notice for R-2 and R-3 and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.
3. Heard Sri.K.C.Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.M.M.Deepa, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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 judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State.
5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted, on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by respondent Nos.2 and 3, that they have amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and that they have no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainants/victims/injured do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners as they have no grievance against them and that they will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed.
6. 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.
7. 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. 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 respondent Nos.2 and 3, 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.
8. 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 Secs. 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Sec. 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 has 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 wastage of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence, following the 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.
10. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure-I final report/charge sheet in Crime No.927/2014 of Mattannur Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mattannur, stand quashed. The petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Mattannur Police Station.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge