The High Court of Kerala by Section 482 CrPC quashed criminal proceedings against one petitioner as an exceptional case, considering the settlement between parties and loss of employment prospects, despite the non-compoundable nature of the offences.
Quashed proceedings in CC No. 2027/11 against the petitioner and directed communication to the lower court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/16TH PHALGUNA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1294 of 2014
CC NO. 2027/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 204/2011 OF BEDAKAM POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD DISTRICT
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:
A.K.ROOPESH,AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.KALATHIL RAMAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, BEDADUKA, BEDAKAM, KASARAGOD.
BY ADV. SRI.V.TEKCHAND
RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1. PRAJITH,
S/O. NARAYANAN, KAKKOTAMMA HOUSE, PALLATHINGAL, MUNNAD POST, KASARAGOD 671 586.
2. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH S I OF POLICE, BEDAKAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.
R1 BY ADV. SRI. RAJESH.N .
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
Crl.MC.No. 1294 of 2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEX A1:-CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO. 2027/2011 ON THE FILE OF JFCM, KASARAGOD.
ANNEX A2:-AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1294 of 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7th day of March, 2014
O R D E R
This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the 2nd accused in C.C. No.2027/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, to quash the case against him, on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the ‘Code’).
2
Crl. M.C. No.1294 of 2014
that is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ksaragod. Now the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant. The defacto-complainant has no complaint against him now. Further he has got an employment in a bank and on account of the pendency of this case, he is likely to loose his employment. No purpose will be served in proceeding with the case, as against the petitioner in view of the settlement. Since, the offence alleged are non-compoundable in nature, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court, seeking the following relief:
“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash AnnexA1 charge sheet in Crime No.204/2011 of Bedakam Police Station, Kasaragod District and all further proceedings in CC No.2027/11 of JFCM, Kasaragod as against the petitioner.”
and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner.
3
Crl. M.C. No.1294 of 2014
as directed by this court submitted that, except this case there is no other case against the petitioner and he has no other criminal background as well, but opposed the application to quash the proceedings..
4
Crl. M.C. No.1294 of 2014
defacto-complainant. He has filed Annexure-A2 affidavit stating that, the matter has been settled between them and the case itself was originated on the basis of some misunderstanding due to political enmity. Further, in the decision reported Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012
(4) KLT 108 (SC)], it reads as follows:
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case an no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. 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. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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
Crl. M.C. No.1294 of 2014
5
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 other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question (s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
6
Crl. M.C. No.1294 of 2014
settlement arrived at between the partis, there is no possibility of conviction being entered into against the petitioner as the defacto-complainant will not support the case of the prosecution and that will be only a wastage of time for the court to proceed with the case, under the peculiar circumstances, this court feels that, the power under Section 482 of the ’Code’ can be invoked to quash the proceedings, as against the petitioner. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.2027/2011 (Crime No.204/11 of Badakam Police Station of Kasaragod District) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, as against the petitioner, who is shown as 2nd accused in the case is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for necessary further action.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge
// True Copy //
P.A. to Judge
ss
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition to quash criminal proceedings against a single accused based on a settlement is maintainable despite the offences being non-compoundable.
Whether the settlement between the parties and the accused's employment prospects justify quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
If it would be contrary to the interest of justice to continue criminal proceedings despite the full and complete settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶47
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.K. Roopesh
Prajith
State of Kerala
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K. Ramakrishnan
Parties & counsel
