Allowed

Praveen v. S I of Police,Hill Palace Police Station

Kerala HC10 Sept 2013Crl.MC/863/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused of kidnapping sought quashing of FIR/crimes due to settlement. Court held offences personal in nature and parties settled. Relying on Gian Singh, Court quashed proceedings to prevent abuse of process and promote settlement.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Annexure-B (final report) and quashing of all further proceedings pending in C.C.No.1725/2007 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.

Praveen Vs S I of Police,Hill Palace Police Station — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/19TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 863 of 2013 ()

¶6

CC 1725/2007 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

------------------

¶9

1. PRAVEEN, AGED 20 YEARS S/O.PRASEETHAN, PARAYANNOOR VEEDU, NADAMA VILLAGE, EROOR.

¶10

2. SUBINDAS, AGED 20 YEARS S/O.SUBRAMANIYAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, TRIPUNITHURA, EROOR.

¶11

3. SUJITH, AGED 20 YEARS S/O.SADANANDA KINI, PUTHANPURAKKAL VEEDU NADAMA VILLAGE, EROOR.

¶12

4. ANOOP

¶13

NEAR N.S.S. SCHOOL, TRIPUNITHURA.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR

¶15

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/ STATE.:

¶16

------------------------------

¶17

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, THRIPUNITHURA.

¶18

2. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶19

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶20

RCW BY ADV. SRI.P.M.BENSON

¶21

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 863 of 2013 ()

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶27

ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE FIR. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

V.K.MOHANAN, J

---------------------------------------

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.863 of 2013

¶35

----------------------------------------

¶36

Dated this the 10^th day of September, 2013

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No.1725/2007 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam which is a case instituted upon the police report for the offences punishable under Sections 363 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure B final report filed against the petitioners by S.I. Of Police Hill palace Police Station in C.C.No.1725 /2007 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam as the matter is settled out of court.

¶39

The allegation in the above case is that on 14/10/2006 at about 10 hrs, the petitioners with a common intention kidnapped three minor children from the law full custody of their parents in a car bearing Re. No.KL.7.A.AR.6778. The Sub Inspector of Police, Udayamperoor while on patrol duty found the accused along with minor children. The minor children are namely Sangeetha, aged 16 years, D/o. Balakrishnamenon, Saranya, aged 17

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.863 of 2013

¶41

¶42

years, D/o. Unnikrishnan and Anjali, aged 16 years, D/o. Rajasekharan. At the time of incident they were studying in plus two class in N.S.S. College, Thripunithura. Thus according to the prosecution the accused 4 in numbers have committed the offences punishable under Section 363 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. Now the case of the petitioners is that during the pendency of the above case the entire matter is settled with the defacto complainant who is CW1 and other victim of the crime. Accordingly, CW1 namely Saranya who is the defacto complainant sworn into an affidavit dated 11/2/2013 by which she has specifically stated that subsequent the incident she was married by the second petitioner and now they are leading a peaceful marital life. Similarly CW2, namely AnjaliRaj sworn into affidavit an affidavit dated 3/9/2013, she has also stated that about the settlement arrived and about the marriage between second petitioner CW1. CW3, namely Sangeetha who had also sworn into an affidavit dated 4/9/2013.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.863 of 2013

¶46

¶47

that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.

¶48

The learned counsel for the respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they has no grievance against them.

¶49

I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition.

¶50

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only Sections 363 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public

¶51

Crl.M.C.No.863 of 2013

¶52

¶53

interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the respondents, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)]. In which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶54

“57. 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

¶55

Crl.M.C.No.863 of 2013

¶56

¶57

be prescribed..

¶58

It is further held as follows:-

¶59

“...... ... 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,mercandile, 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........”

¶60

According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling

¶61

Crl.M.C.No.863 of 2013

¶62

¶63

the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.

¶64

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-B and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.1725/2007 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶67

Praveen v. S I of Police,Hill Palace Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen v. S I of Police,Hill Palace Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faizal Vs State of Kerala

U.U.Umnashanker Vs State of Kerala

Shafeek Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Musthak Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala