The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner under S.482 CrPC, holding that since the family dispute was settled amicably and the offence was personal, continuing prosecution would be futile and an abuse of process.
Criminal proceedings pending under C.C.No.643/2015 in Crime No.770/2015 are quashed.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA 1938
Crl.MC.No. 2031 of 2016 ()
CC 643/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISITRATE COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO. 770/2015 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
MANOJ, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, SREE BHAVANAM, HOUSE NO.149, CURZON NAGAR, KACHERI WARD, KOLLAM - 691 013.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE.
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. RAJEEV N.,
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rvs.
Crl.MC.No. 2031 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
| **PETITIONER(S)' ** | EXHIBITS : |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE-A | CERTIFIED COPY MAVELIKKARA POLICE |
OF STA |
THE FIR IN CR.NO.770/2015 TION, MAVELIKKARA. |
| ANNEXURE-B | CERTIFIED COPY OF OF JUDICIAL FI MAVELIKKARA. |
THE RST |
FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.643/2015 CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, |
| ANNEXURE-C | TRUE COPY OF THE NO.346/2015 ALONG |
ORDE WITH |
R DATED 12.10.2015 IN TR.P.C. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT. |
| ANNEXURE-D | TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
AFF | IDAVIT DATED 4.10.2015 OF THE |
| **RESPONDENT(S)' ** | EXHIBITS : |
NIL.
/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE
rvs.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
Crl.M.C.No.2031 of 2016
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2016
O R D E R
Crl.M.C.No.2031 of 2016 : 2 :
05.10.2015 which is produced as Annexure C herein. The learned counsel would further submit that the 2nd respondent has also sworn to an affidavit which is produced as Annexure D, in which he has asserted that he does not intent or wish that the criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioner should continue any further. According to the learned counsel, the dispute is purely personal in nature and therefore, would not affect public peace or tranquility and prays that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote harmony.
Crl.M.C.No.2031 of 2016
: 3 :
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. It was observed as follows :
“61. 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 criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466,
the pertinent observations which are as under:
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing
Crl.M.C.No.2031 of 2016
: 4 :
the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code.No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
9.As per the above guidelines issued by the Apex Court, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility and when it is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice, the inherent powers under
Crl.M.C.No.2031 of 2016 : 5 :
Section 482 of the Code can very well be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. In such cases persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.
10.In view of the above, this Court is of the view that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility. I am therefore of the view that the criminal proceedings pending as against the petitioner can be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under S.482 of the Code.
11.In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed.
All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.643/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara in Crime No.770/2015 of Mavelikkara police station shall stand quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.
Bb
[True copy]
P.A to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pending criminal proceedings should be quashed on the ground of settlement between parties under S.482 CrPC.
Whether the offences constitute a purely personal dispute not affecting public peace or tranquility.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manoj
The State of Kerala
Rajeev N.
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
