IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 27[SECTION]8 of 2016 CC.15[SECTION]/201[SECTION] OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOLLAM CRIME NO. 139/201[SECTION] OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: 1. MANIKANDAN, AGED [SECTION]0 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, SREEKRISHNA BHAVANAM, GURUDEVA NAGAR-100, PUNTHALATHAZHAM, AYATHIL, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM. 2. AKHIL, S/O. ANIRUNDHAN, AGED 27 YEARS, KEECHAPPALLITHODIYIL, PANTHRANDUMURI NAGAR-155, KAYYALAKKAL, ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM. 3. SHAHID, S/O.L.M. BADHUSHA, AGED 31 YEARS, WHITE HOUSE, SANTHI NAGAR, MANAKKADU, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM. [SECTION]. ASSAIN @ ASSAIN PALLIMUKKU, S/O. AHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 29 YEARS, THALMATHU MANZIL, KAYYALAKKAL, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINT AND STATE: 1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OFPOLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MANIKANDAN, S/O. SREENIVASANACHARI, AGED [SECTION]5 YEARS, MOORTHI BHAVAN, KALLUVIAL PADINJATTATHIL, KUREEPUZHA CHERI, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. PJ 2/- 2 Crl.MC.No. 27[SECTION]8 of 2016 3. MUKUNDAN, S/O. MANIKANDAN, AGED 21 YEARS, MOORTHI BHAVAN, KALLUVILA PADINJATTATHIL, KUREEPUZHA CHERI, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFI R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Crl.MC.No. 27[SECTION]8 of 2016 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.139/201[SECTION] OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO.139/1[SECTION] ANNEXURE 3: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE R2 REGARDING SETTLEMENT DATED 30/7/15 ANNEXURE [SECTION]: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE R3 REGARDING SETTLEMENT DATED 30/7/15. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES NIL. / TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE PJ [ENTITY], J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 27[SECTION]8 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 23rd May, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER
This application is filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") seeking invocation of powers of this Court to quash pending Criminal Proceedings.
2. Crime No.139 of 201[SECTION] of Kollam East Police Station was registered at the instance of second respondent herein against the petitioners herein under [SECTION] and [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT].
3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report before the jurisdictional Magistrate and case is now pending trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam as C.C.No.15[SECTION] of 201[SECTION]. During the pendency of the criminal case, parties have decided to resolve the disputes and to live in harmony. Having compromised the matter, the petitioners/accused have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of [SECTION] of the Code
[SECTION]. The second respondent/defacto complainant has entered appearance through counsel and it is submitted that the disputes have been amicably settled with the avowed objective to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. The third respondent is the injured and both second and third respondents have sworn to separate affidavits before court wherein it has been emphatically stated that their grievance do not exist anymore and also that they do not intend to pursue the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners herein.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain instructions from the Investigating officer and it is submitted that the State has no objection in acting on [SECTION] and [SECTION] as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents.
6. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra.
7. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC
303), Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in [PRECEDENT]. (201[SECTION]) 6 SCC [SECTION]66) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another 201[SECTION] (9) SCC 653 .
8. It was held that the 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. It was held that certain categories of cases involving 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 as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the de facto complainant to great oppression and prejudice
9. After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.
Consequently, the Annexure 2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 15[SECTION] of 201[SECTION] on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class - II , Kollam shall stand quashed.
[ENTITY], JUDGE kp/-23.5.16