The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC as the dispute between parties was settled with compensation, rendering further proceedings oppressive and an abuse of process.
The application to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 86/2011 (Crime No. 289/10) pending before JFCM-I Court, Kannur is allowed.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/28TH PHALGUNA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 1601 of 2014 ()
CC.NO. 86/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, KANNUR CRIME NO. 289/2010 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 :
1. ABDULLA M.K, AGED 29 YEARS,
2. SAINUL ABID @ SAIN, AGED 28 YEARS,
3. SAMEER V.P., AGED 29 YEARS,
4. SIYAD.A.K., AGED 27 YEARS,
BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :
1. ABDUL RAHMAN,AGED 70 YEARS,S/O.KHADER, ANAKKARAN THAYALEPURAYIL CHANKULATH,
2. PADAPPIL RAMLA, AGED 50 YEARS,
3. PADAPPIL AFSAL,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, PADAPPIL HOUSE, PALLIKKARA, CHERUKUNNU.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 301
4. STATE OF KERALA,
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANEESHA R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE.P.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
Crl.MC.No. 1601 of 2014 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEX1. COPY OF FIR & POLICE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.289/10 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEX 11. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF IST RESPONDENT. ANNEX 111. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEX IV. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE
sts
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 1601 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19th March, 2014
O R D E R
This is an application filed by accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 86/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No– I, Kannur to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2
Crl.M.C. No. 1601 of 2014
There is no possibility of any conviction in view of the settlement and no purpose will be served by allowing the case to continue as well. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they could file application for compounding before the court below. So they have no option except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“Therefore it is humbly prayed that the Crl.M.C. may be allowed and Annexure I FIR & police charge and all further proceedings in C.C. 86/2011 on the file of JFCM-I Court, Kannur in Crime No.289/2010 of Kannapuram police station may kindly be quashed for the interest of justice”.
submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and they have no intention to prosecute the case in view of the settlement arrived at due to intervention of well-wishers of both parties and they have filed affidavits to that effect as well. The counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case.
Crl.M.C. No. 1601 of 2014
3
against the petitioners and they have no criminal antecedents as well but opposed the application.
Crl.M.C. No. 1601 of 2014
4
6. Further in the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State
of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC) ], it is held as follows:
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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. 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 resolved their entire dispute. In this category of case, 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
Crl.M.C. No. 1601 of 2014
5
or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 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.”
Crl.M.C. No. 1601 of 2014
6
Office is directed to communicate this order to the
concerned court for further action immediately.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
rka
/true copy/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC despite the offences being partially non-compoundable where a full settlement and compensation have been provided.
If continuation of the case amounts to an abuse of the process of law and oppression to the accused after a full settlement.
Whether the court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction to settle the dispute in the interest of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh V. State of PunjabRelied on¶59
Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdulla M.K
Sainul Abid
Sameer V.P.
Siyad A.K.
Abdul Rahman
Padappil Ramla
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K. Ramakrishnan
Parties & counsel
