IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 997 of 2000() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/10/2000 IN CMP.201/2000(CC.518/97)IN VARKALA P.S.CR.48/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------- VASUDEVAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, SREEVILAS, MUNDAYIL DESOM, VARKALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 3767 OF 2001 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.997 of 2000 & Crl.M.C.No.3767 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009. ORDER These proceedings pertain to two cases pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Varkala - C.C.Nos.518 of 1997 and 624 of 1997 both arising from reports submitted by police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). In C.C.No.518 of 1997 offences charged are under Sections 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) for allegedly trespassing into the house of defacto complainant and outraging her modesty. In C.C.No. 624 of 1997 offences punishable under Sections 341,451 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC are incorporated. 2. Case is that on 9.1.1997 petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.997 of 2000 trespassed into the house of defacto complainant therein who is the daughter of first petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3767 of 2001 and outraged her modesty. It is alleged that consequent to that incident, father of the defacto complaint in C.C.No.518 of 1997 along with his son and two others trespassed into the house of petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.997 of 2000, wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused hurt to him. On the complaints given by the victims in both the cases police registered cases, investigated and submitted final reports as above stated. Petitioners in each of the cases say that allegations against them are false. Crl.RP No.997/2000 & Crl.MC No.3767/2001 2 3. While these proceedings were pending in this Court the cases were forwarded to the Lok Adalath under the auspicious of High Court Legal Services Authority on the request of the parties as a settlement was possible. it is seen that parties discussed the matter in the Lok Adalath. Parties in these proceedings were represented by their counsel. Counsel appearing for petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3767 of 2001 represented the defacto complainant in C.C.No.518 of 1997 as well. By that time, she had already been sent in marriage and that was one of the reasons for the parties deciding to bury the disputes and settle the case. Matter was settled before Lok Adalath. But, since that authority had no power to compound a non-compoundable offence, after recording the settlement reached between parties the cases were sent back to this Court. That is how these cases have come back to this Court. 4. I heard counsel for parties in these cases and the Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel submitted that there is no point in proceeding with these proceedings in view of settlement arrived at between parties. It is also pointed out that offences involved in the cases are compoundable and that observation of the Lok Adalath that one of the offences is not compoundable was on mistaken impression that a non-compoundable offence was also incorporated in the final report. Learned counsel appearing for parties in these proceedings therefore requested this Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code. and quash the proceedings. Reliance is placed on the decision in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008 (3) KLT 769-SC). Crl.RP No.997/2000 & Crl.MC No.3767/2001 3 Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that appropriate orders may be passed as this Court found just and proper taking into account the settlement between parties. 5. In Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation Supreme Court ruled that technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of court's power to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences where the dispute is settled between rival parties. It is stated that proceedings can be quashed invoking Section 482 of the Code based on such compromise. In this case it is agreed by parties that they have settled the dispute. Defacto complainant in C.C.No.518 of 1997 whose modesty is said to have been outraged and which allegedly is the root cause of the incident referred to in both the cases is now a major, she has been sent in marriage and is living peacefully with her husband. Learned counsel submitted that in such a situation, if she is summoned as a prosecution witness to speak about alleged outraging of modesty that will be embarrassing not only her but also her family. 6. Crl.R.P.No.997 of 2000 arises from rejection of prayer of petitioner therein to close evidence in view of decision in Raj Deo Sharma (II) v. State of Bihar (1999 SCC (Cri)1324). Crl.M.C.No.3767 of 2001 is filed under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceedings in C.C.No.624 of 1997. I stated that offences involved in these cases are compoundable with the permission of court and as it is submitted before me and as Lok Adalath was recorded, dispute has Crl.RP No.997/2000 & Crl.MC No.3767/2001 4 already been settled. I am satisfied that no useful purpose will be served by continuing these proceedings and summoning the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances I am inclined to invoke the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code and quash proceedings in both the cases. Resultantly these petitions are allowed. Proceedings in C.C.Nos.518 of 1997 and 624 of 1997 of court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Varkala will stand quashed. Crl.M.P.No.5342 of 2000 in Crl.R.P.No.997 of 2000 and Crl.M.P.No.3126 of 2001 in Crl.M.C.no.3767 of 2001 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks Crl.RP No.997/2000 & Crl.MC No.3767/2001 5 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.997 of 2000 & Crl.M.C.No.3767 of 2001 ORDER 12th June, 2009.